Antecedents and Consequences of Cynicism in Organizations: an Examination of the Potential Positive and Negative Effects on School Systems Matrecia S

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Antecedents and Consequences of Cynicism in Organizations: An Examination of the Potential Positive and Negative Effects on School Systems Matrecia S. L. James

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF

CYNICISM IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL POSITIVE

AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON SCHOOL SYSTEMS

MATRECIA S. L. JAMES

Dissertation submitted to the Department of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2005

The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Matrecia S. Long James defended on March 4, 2005.

______Gerald R. Ferris Professor Directing Dissertation

______Wayne A. Hochwarter Professor Directing Dissertation

______Carolyn D. Herrington Outside Committee Member

______Pamela L. Perrewè Committee Member

______John A. Sample Committee Member

Approved:

______E. Joe Nosari, Interim Dean, College of Business

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

To my sons, my pride and joy: Kahlil A. James, Yahdid O. James, Wahcovi E. James and Nahzion G. James

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Success is not obtained in solitude. I recognized that I did not accomplish this huge task alone. To all those who helped along the way, I offer my sincerest gratitude. First and foremost, I give thanks to God for blessing this endeavor and for making this day a reality. Next, I thank Dr. Gerald Ferris and Dr. Wayne Hochwarter, my co-chairs, for your priceless guidance and your valuable training, for taking the time to share your experiences and expertise, for taking a personal interest in my future, and for being model scholars. Additionally, I am grateful to Dr. Pam Perrewè, Dr. John Sample and Dr. Carolyn Herrington, my committee members, for your sacrifices and accommodations, for being available when I needed you, and for your numerous contributions to this work. I would also like to offer my deepest heart felt thank you to my family members who were there for me throughout this process. My struggle was their struggle. Now, my triumph is also theirs. Special thanks go to: Emmett and Annie Long, my parents, for instilling in me the importance of hard work, tenacity, and a good education, for believing in me sometimes more than I believed in myself, and especially for helping to care for my sons as if they were your own; Demeà James, King of My Heart, my husband, for being whatever I needed you to be whenever I needed it most, for keeping your vow to encourage and support me, for sometimes carrying more than your share of the load, for providing me with a personal safe haven from the world, and for being a gentle, yet strong father to ours sons; Kahlil, Yahdid, Wahcovi, and Nahzion James, my beloved sons, for loving me unconditionally, for being a reminder of what is really important in life, and for making me your queen; Chris Long and Deirdre Long Pittman, my big brother and my little sister, for being my best friends, for providing me with much needed conversation and laughter, for deeply listening, and for never hesitating to do whatever you could to make things easier for me; Mary Vann, my grandmother, and Thelma Vann Lambert, my aunt, for being my other mothers, for rescheduling, rearranging and sometimes dropping everything to oblige my needs, and for being like the cavalry, always there to save the day; iv Everyone who cared, prayed, smiled, or simply thought of me every now and then. Though your efforts may have seemed to go unnoticed at times, know that you are appreciated. Each of you played a special part in transforming what was once an aspiration into an actuality. You stood in front of me when I needed a buffer, you stood behind me when I needed reinforcement, and you walked beside me when I needed a friend. Thank you.

It’s by God’s grace, all things through Christ Jesus.

What sculpture is to a block of marble, education is to the soul. --Joseph Addison

At a point, you have to go to the edge of the cliff and jump---put your ideas into form, share that form with others. --Meredith Monk

God never said that the journey would be easy, but he did say that the arrival would be worthwhile. --In the Eye of the Storm

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

ABSTRACT ...... xi

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

LITERTURE REVIEW ...... 6

MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ...... 35

METHODS ...... 52

RESULTS ...... 60

DISCUSSION ...... 70

APPENDIX A ...... 120

APPENDIX B ...... 128

REFERENCES ...... 130

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 145

vii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Model of Organizational Cynicism ...... 83

Figure 2: The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Cynicism ...... 84

Figure 3: The Moderating Effect of Workplace Spirituality on the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Cynical Behavior ...... 85

Figure 4: The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Cynical Behavior ...... 86

Figure 5: The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Psychological Contract Violation and Cynical Beliefs...... 87

Figure 6: The moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Cynical Beliefs...... 88

Figure 7: The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Cynical Affect...... 89

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis, Organizational Cynicism...... 90

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Comparison, Organizational Cynicism Scale...... 91

Table 3: Model Comparisons, Organizational Cynicism Scale...... 92

Table 4: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Independent Variables...... 93

Table 5: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Comparison, Predictor Variables ...... 95

Table 6: Model Comparisons, Predictor Variables...... 96

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficientsa ...... 97

Table 8: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Cynicism on Workplace Perceptionsa...... 101

Table 9: Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysisa ...... 102

Table 10: Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysisa ...... 103

Table 11: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Tension on Organizational Cynicisma ...... 104

Table 12: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Teacher Burnout on Organizational Cynicisma ...... 105

Table 13: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Workplace Outcomes on Organizational Cynicism ...... 106

Table 14: Summary of Hypotheses Results...... 107

Table 15: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation a...... 108

Table 16: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation...... 109

Table 17: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa ...... 110

Table 18: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa ...... 111

Table 19: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa ...... 112

Table 20: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa ...... 113

Table 21: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa ...... 114 ix Table 22: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation...... 115

Table 23: Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysisa...... 116

Table 24: Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysis a...... 117

Table 25: Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysisa...... 118

Table 26: Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysisa...... 119

x ABSTRACT Cynicism is described as a mind-set characterized by hopelessness, disappointment, and disillusionment, and is also associated with scorn, disgust, and suspicion (Andersson, 1996). This strong negative attitude has infiltrated America’s corporations, and is believed to be responsible for a host of unfavorable organizational consequences. Thus, cynicism is acknowledged as a increasing problem in the workplace that merits immediate and detailed research attention. In large part, cynicism is emerging as the new pattern of employer-employee relations. Past research indicated that a large percentage of employees agreed that management in organizations would take advantage of them if given the chance, employees are never really told the real reason behind decisions that affect them, and a person doesn’t know whom he or she can count on (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Mirvis & Kanter, 1992). Contemporary academicians now realize the profound effect that cynicism can have on organizations, and the significance of understanding this seemingly ubiquitous organizational phenomenon. However, most studies have not examined organizational cynicism as the central concept, and theoretical model development has been limited. Thus, the principle objective of this dissertation is to propose, and empirically test, a comprehensive, integrative model of organizational cynicism that is comprised of antecedents, moderators, and consequences. This dissertation takes a systematic view in which organizational cynicism is considered a negative attitude directed particularly towards the organization. The projected contribution of this investigation is to offer the field a more informed understanding of organizational cynicism. Specifically, this study examines four workplace perceptions (perceptions of organizational politics, organizational justice, psychological contract violations, and perceived organizational support) as antecedents of organizational cynicism, work locus of control and workplace spirituality as moderators the individual workplace perceptions-organizational cynicism relationships, and job strain (job tension and teacher burnout), citizenship behaviors (organization focused and person focused), workplace deviance (counterproductive behavior and compliance), and performance (individual performance and organizational performance) as associated outcomes.

xi Findings indicate that all four workplace perceptions significantly influence organizational cynicism, and that work locus of control moderates the relationship between perceive organizational support and organizational cynicism. Additionally, findings reveal that organizational cynicism is positively related to job tension, teacher burnout, counterproductive work behavior, and compliance. On the contrary, results show a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and personal citizenship behavior, and as expected, organizational cynicism did not significantly influence individual performance. Tests of the model assumption further indicate organizational cynicism partially mediates the relationships between perceptions of organizational politics and job tension, perceived organizational support and job tension, and perceived organizational support and teacher burnout. Additionally, support was found for the notion that organizational cynicism fully mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational performance. Furthermore, post hoc analysis results suggest that work locus of control and workplace spirituality moderate the relationships between various workplace perceptions and individual factors of organizational cynicism. Implications are discussed and future research considered.

xii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Cynicism is an attitude characterized by hopelessness, frustration and disillusionment. It is also related to contempt, disgust, and distrust (Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997). The central belief associated with cynicism is that principles of honesty, fairness, and sincerity are sacrificed to further the individual's self-interest. This underlying self-centered purpose is believed to lead to actions based on hidden agendas and deception (Abraham, 2000). This strong negative attitude permeates America’s corporations and is currently blamed for a multitude of unfavorable organizational outcomes. Thus, cynicism is recognized as a growing problem in the workplace that calls for immediate and detailed attention. Cynicism in the workplace can be traced back to the philosophers of the fourth century B. C. and the early Cynic School of the fifth century B. C. (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Copelston, 1985). Early philosophers, who were followers of Antitheses, flaunted popular convictions just for the sake of doing so. Cynics of the following century scoffed at the relentless pursuit of power, wealth, and materialism by their fellow citizens (Goldfarb, 1991). As other Greek philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, became more widely respected and followed, cynics soon died out. However, during the moral corruption of Rome in the third century A. D., cynicism was revived. This new school of cynicism no longer emphasized independence, suppression of desire, and physical endurance. Instead, it was based more on mockery of conviction, tradition, dominant beliefs, and manners of behavior (Copelston, 1985). This impression and use of the term cynicism still endures today. Contemporary cynics see little use in adhering to ethics and morality, and would rather separate themselves from the evils of manipulation and power that they believe prevail in society. Moreover, modern cynics express apathy and resignation, and do little to facilitate social change (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). Cynicism is no longer restricted to particular groups of philosophers or schools of thought, but rather is believed to be everywhere. Cynicism not only affects society at large, but also is widespread among organizations in the United States (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), Europe, and Asia (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). For the most part, cynicism is emerging as the new paradigm of employer-employee relations (Feldman, 2000). A past study of employees’ attitudes about organizational leaders indicated that many workers believed that given the opportunity, corporate management would take advantage of them,

1 withhold information concerning decision making, and cannot be counted on to provide consistent support (Mirvis & Kanter, 1992). In recent years, academicians have begun to recognize the profound impact that cynicism can have on organizations and the importance of understanding this seemingly pervasive phenomenon. Goldner and his colleagues were the first scholars to examine how aspects of cynicism might affect organizations and their members (Goldner, Ritti, & Ference, 1977). Specifically, these researchers were interested in the production of cynical knowledge, and the ability of such information to break down authority. However, this line of research focused mainly on the institutional and bureaucratic structures of the organization, and did not take into consideration individual characteristics of its members. Furthermore, it did not recognize cynicism as an independent construct that might develop and exist without the breakdown of institutionalized beliefs. Although both practitioners and academicians long have been aware of the presence of cynicism within organizations, until recently, it had not been openly acknowledged or examined. Thus, most of the work on cynicism is typical of the first stage of scientific research (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). During this introduction and elaboration stage, concepts are introduced and justified. Nonetheless, some researchers have begun to focus their research on the systematic examination of cynicism as a construct that can directly affect attitudes and behavior in virtually all organizational settings (e. g., Abraham, 2000; Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Dean et al., 1998; Pugh, Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). Despite the fact that researchers have begun to direct their research attention toward exploring cynicism as it relates to organizations, the literature is still quite diverse (Andersson, 1996). Cynicism within organizations has been theorized to have significant repercussions with respect to employee attitudes (Andersson & Bateman, 1997) and organizational development (Wanous et al., 2000). However, this construct has not been subjected to extensive empirical inquiry. Although certain aspects of cynicism have been empirically tested (e.g., Andersson, 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Bateman, Sakano, & Fujita, 1992; Wanous et al., 2000), the present state of organizational cynicism research is fragmented and lacks comprehensive, integrative work.

2 Cynicism has been described in a number of ways. Much of the past research has defined cynicism as a personality trait (Smith, Pope, Sanders, Allred, & O’Keefe, 1988), or has identified industry-level environmental causes of cynicism (i.e., workforce reduction and cutbacks, firm performance) (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Other studies have examined antecedents or causes that are under the direct control of individual organizations (Andersson, 1996; Reichers et al., 1997). Further, it has been theorized that organizational cynicism includes both a stable personal component as well as situational components (Abraham, 2000; Dean et al., 1998). These studies have separated cynicism within organizations into five identifiable forms (i.e., personal cynicism, societal cynicism, cynicism towards change, work cynicism, and employee cynicism). However, many scholars have recognized that organizational cynicism does not necessarily include all five components, and that individuals who develop cynical attitudes toward their organizations do not necessarily possess the stable personality trait of cynicism (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Dean et al., 1998). In fact, the majority of academicians have defined cynicism as an attitude of contempt, distrust, and frustration towards an object or multiple objects, subject to change by exposure to factors in the environment (e.g., Bateman et al., 1992; Brandes-Ducan, 1995; Goldfarb, 1991; Guastello, Rieke, Guastello & Billings, 1992; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Mirivs & Kanter, 1992; Wanous, Reichers & Austin, 1994). Most of the studies conducted that have accepted this conceptualization of cynicism in the workplace have not examined organizational cynicism as the central concept. The most noted studies have focused on specific targets for cynicism including organizational change (Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 2000) and the nature of careers (Feldman, 2000), and they have focused primarily on negative outcomes related to cynicism. However, Andersson and Bateman (1997) noted that cynicism toward the organization might reduce employee compliance to unethical requests made by managers. Further, Abraham (2000) indicated that some forms of work-related cynicism might serve as a coping strategy for employees in stressful situations. To date, there are no known theoretical or empirical studies that have addressed the need to explore the possibility that, in addition to destructive outcomes, cynicism also might result in constructive organizational and employee outcomes. Thus, one focus of this dissertation is to theoretically and empirically examine potential positive and negative outcomes related to cynicism simultaneously.

3 Additionally, the most noted theoretical endeavor to develop and present an integrated model of organizational cynicism was presented by Andersson (1996). The aforementioned study examined organizational cynicism using a contract violation framework and thus, focused on individual perceptions of psychological and implied contract violations by the organization as its primary determinant. This dissertation extends this model by considering the direct effects of other individual perceptions of the organization in addition to perceived psychological contract violations. Other organizational perceptions that are taken into account are perceptions of politics, justice perceptions, and perceptions of organizational support. This dissertation also examines the potential effects of moderators on the relationship between the suggested antecedents and cynicism. As proposed by past conceptualizations, it is argued that the relationship between individual perceptions of the organization and cynicism is not always straightforward (Andersson, 1996). It is believed that certain factors may predispose individuals to react in a specific way in given situations. Two individual difference factors that have been under investigated in cynicism studies are locus of control and employee spirituality. By examining the effects of these variables, this study extends our understanding of the role that personality plays in organizational life, as well as identifies practical implications and the utility of workplace spirituality as it applies to the organizational cynicism process. Purpose and Intended Contribution of the Research The principle purpose of this dissertation is to propose, and empirically test, an integrative model of organizational cynicism that includes antecedents, moderators, and consequences. As indicated above, this dissertation takes a systematic and integrative view, in which organizational cynicism is seen as a negative, subjective attitude directed specifically towards the organization. The intended contribution of this research is to offer the field a more informed understanding of the organizational cynicism construct. Research Context This dissertation recognizes that cynicism is likely to be present in all types of organizations. In order to expand the research base of organizational cynicism, this research is conducted in educational settings. It is anticipated that this study will make valuable contributions by expanding cynicism research into an occupational field and organizational context that has been unexplored by past cynicism researchers. Additionally, it is expected to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics of educational organizations. Unlike prior

4 studies, this dissertation is designed to include teacher and non-instructional staff members of schools. Related research findings are likely to provide a broader perspective of cynicism relationships within this, and other work environments. Organization of Dissertation This dissertation progresses in the following manner. The second chapter examines the construct of organizational cynicism, and reviews the relevant literature. Specifically, this chapter defines organizational cynicism and discusses the distinctness of this construct relative to other variables that may possess overlap. Following this, the dissertation concentrates on explaining the theoretical foundations that have been used to explicate the nature of cynicism, and is followed by a review of seminal works from which organizational cynicism is derived. The chapter continues with a discussion of cynicism as it relates to specific occupations. Following this, a review of the literature is presented on cynicism in the workplace as a construct that transcends occupations and is common to virtually all organizations. The second chapter ends with a summary of the state of organizational cynicism research. The third chapter introduces the dissertation model and hypotheses. Thereafter, relevant hypotheses are offered. The fourth chapter offers the research design followed by a summary of the research sample and a power analysis is provided. Additionally, a description of the operationalization of the constructs and the measures used in the dissertation research is presented. The fifth chapter provides detailed results of the data analyses used to test the research model. In this chapter, a test of the primary model assumption and appropriate pos hoc analyses are discussed following the tests of the central hypotheses. The final chapter presents a discussion of the results of the data analyses. The results of this dissertation are integrated into the existing literature on cynicism in organizations. The contributions, limitation, practical implications, and directions for future research are discussed.

CHAPTER TWO LITERTURE REVIEW A burgeoning theme in organizational behavior research is the study of causes and consequences of organizational cynicism. Concern with sources of and responses to cynicism is not misplaced. Practically all organizations contain employees with cynical attitudes and an awareness of employee reactions to organizational cynicism is essential to understanding organizational and employee effectiveness. In support, research has corroborated a link between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction (Abraham, 2000; Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 1994), commitment, alienation (Abraham, 2000), and citizenship behavior (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Despite these contributions, research on cynicism has been sundry and sparse (Andersson, 1996), and has built upon many of the research findings of other more established areas of cynicism studies Andersson (1996) discussed cynicism across various professional fields and areas of study including psychosocial aspects of cynicism (Cook & Medley, 1954), cynicism in social work (Meyerson, 1990), police cynicism (Niederhoffer, 1967), and cynicism towards big business (Bateman et al., 1992; Mirvis & Kanter, 1992). Cynicism penetrates occupational and industrial barriers (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989) and affects company life in virtually all organization types. Defining Organizational Cynicism Researchers have viewed cynicism as a personality trait, an emotion, a belief, or an attitude (Andersson, 1996). These various conceptualizations have led to an abundance of different descriptors that have allowed organizational cynicism to elude a universal definition across disciplines. Initial work related to cynicism among American workers simply defined it as negative, distrustful attitudes towards authority and institutions (Bateman et al., 1992). However, cynicism research that followed altered aspects of this definition. For instance, Reichers et al. (1997) asserted that cynicism involves a loss of faith in leaders of organizational change, and is a response to a history of experiences that were unfavorable. Andersson (1996) defined cynicism as “an attitude of contempt, frustration and distrust toward an object or multiple objects, susceptible to change by exposure to factors in the environment” (Andersson,

6 1996, p. 1396). This definition broadened the scope of cynicism considerably by explicitly incorporating the affective component of cynical attitudes. It has been acknowledged that cynicism often reflects a basic philosophy about human nature, a general attitude that others cannot be trusted or depended on to be trustworthy and sincere (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Costa, Zonderman, McCrae, & Williams, 1985). On other occasions, cynicism is directed towards specific activities or entities such as work, big business, particular industries, single firms, labor unions or management (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Lipset & Schnieder, 1983). Accordingly, Andersson (1996) and Andersson and Bateman (1997) defined cynicism as both a general and specific attitude characterized by disillusionment, frustration, with negative feelings toward and distrust of a person, group, ideology, social convention, or institution. Dean et al. (1998) conceptualized cynicism as a multidimensional construct with three components (e.g. beliefs, affect, and behavioral tendencies) that have long been included in attitude theory. Specifically, Dean and colleagues (1998, p. 345) defined cynicism as “a negative attitude towards 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.” A recent conceptualization of organizational cynicism by Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly (2003) built upon the definitions of Dean et al. (1998) and Andersson (1996) by suggesting that organizational cynicism exists when employees believe that their employing organization lacks integrity. Further, cynicism represents an attitude that can relate to multiple objects, and be generalized from one target to another. It is further suggested that organizational cynicism represents a learned belief that develops as a result of experience (Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Thus, building on the work of Bateman et al. (1992), Dean et al. (1998), Reichers et al. (1997), Andersson (1996), Andersson and Bateman (1997), and Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly (2003), this dissertation proposes the following definition of organizational cynicism: Organizational cynicism refers to attitudes related to one's employing organization, characterized by negative beliefs, feelings, and related behaviors. Additionally, it is a

7 response to a history of personal and/or social experiences that are susceptible to change by environmental influences. Moreover, organizational cynicism is viewed as a negative work attitude, not synonymous with a stable personality trait. It is a state, an aspect of individuals that may change over time, and is directed towards the organization (Dean et al., 1998). Furthermore, the development of organizational cynicism is believed to be facilitated by certain situations and dispositions. Cynicism as a Distinct Construct Because cynicism is a relatively new construct in the general area of employee attitudes, it is necessary to distinguish it from other constructs that already exist. This is undertaken to circumvent the appearance of an “old construct with a new name” (Dean et al., 1998). In this dissertation, I differentiate cynicism from similar constructs such as trust, job satisfaction (Andersson, 1996), and perceptions of organizational politics (Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002). Trust and cynicism. Interest in the concept of trust has grown over the course of the last 20 years (Creed & Miles, 1996), and into the current decade. Among organizational scholars, trust has received attention as a mechanism of control, as an alternative to authority (Bradach & Eccles, 1989), as a key factor in managerial beliefs and philosophies (Miles & Creed, 1995), and as a necessary element in the operation of networks in organizations (Miles & Creed, 1995; Miles & Snow, 1992; Powell, 1990). A review of the trust literature (e.g. Bromily & Cummings, 1995; Hosmer, 1995; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) suggests that individuals assess the likelihood that another party is willing to take into account the interests of others involved in a transaction. Moreover, trust is the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another person (Dean et al., 1998). Dean and colleagues (1998) further posited that trust does not include affect, even though individuals may experience negative or positive affect based on the outcomes of a trust transaction. Like cynicism, trust can be divided into two sub-constructs: a global or generalized component and a specific situational component (Andersson, 1996; Driscoll, 1978; Stack, 1978). Trust is conceptualized as both the specific expectation that another’s action will be beneficial rather than detrimental (Gambetta, 1988), and the generalized ability to take for granted or have faith in the motives of others in society (Zucker, 1986). On the contrary, researchers using

8 personality-based approaches have discussed cynicism as an overall outlook on human nature (Dean et al., 1998). For example, according to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), personality cynics see others as selfish, question the motives of others, and are generally untrusting in relationships (Cook & Medley, 1954). Numerous other researchers and theoreticians have defined cynicism as a specific attitude of disdain, frustration, and distrust towards an object or multiple objects (Bateman et al., 1992; Brandes-Ducan, 1995). Based on the characteristics of the global and specific components of trust and cynicism, it may appear that they are simply the same construct on opposite ends of a continuum. However, it is argued that trust and cynicism diverge in several ways. For example, the absence of specific trust may be due to a lack of experience with another party, which in turn leads to a lack of confidence in trusting the other party (Dean et al., 1998; Rotter, 1971). Specific forms of cynicism, such as organizational cynicism, are almost always based on experiences (Dean et al., 1998). Also, trust requires a vulnerability to another party (Mayer et al., 1995), whereas cynicism does not necessarily involve interpersonal vulnerability. Dean and colleagues (1998) argued that one can be cynical without being vulnerable, whereas trust has no meaning in the absence of vulnerability. Finally, cynicism can be discerned from trust by its broader nature. Specifically, trust is a belief or expectancy, whereas cynicism is an attitude made up of an affective component (i.e., hopelessness and disillusionment) as well as a belief (Andersson, 1996). Job satisfaction and cynicism. Job satisfaction is a construct that has received considerable research attention (Dean et al., 1998). Because they are both job-related attitudes, it is important to acknowledge the similarities between job satisfaction and cynicism, and to highlight important characteristics that offer uniqueness. In past studies, job satisfaction has been considered as a global job-related concept (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951), as a broad orientation to a job (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), and as a more specific construct relating to aspects of jobs such as pay and supervision (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981). Based on these conceptualizations, a significant difference between organizational cynicism and job satisfaction is that job satisfaction focuses on the “job” as opposed to the employing organization. It is also necessary to illustrate that, although job satisfaction is an attitude conveying the degree to which an individual's work is capable of satisfying or frustrating (dissatisfaction) their needs (Griffin & Bateman, 1986), cynicism is both a generalized and specific attitude characterized by frustration, hopelessness, disillusionment, distrust, and contempt toward a

9 person, group, or object that represents the organization (Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Dean et al., 1998). Though cynicism and job (dis)satisfaction share the common component of frustration, cynicism also encompasses other elements, including hopelessness, disillusionment, contempt, and distrust (Andersson, 1996). Not only is cynicism broader in scope, it is also outwardly directed, whereas, job satisfaction is retrospective and typically self- focused (Wanous et al. 1994). Perceptions of organizational politics and cynicism. Organizational politics is another area of substantial interest to constituencies varying from behavioral scientists to the general public (Ferris et al., 2002). Like organizational cynicism, active scientific agendas related to organizational politics are being pursued by scholars from a number of disciplines. Although this field has grown rapidly over the past decade, only recently have scholars undertaken the task of defining the construct called “perceptions of politics” (Ferris et al., 2002). Ferris, Harrell-Cook, and Dulebohn (2000) described perceptions of politics as an individual’s personal assessment of the level to which the work environment is infused with co-workers and supervisors who display self-serving behavior. It is important to point out that this definition involves the idea that perceptions of politics requires an attribution concerning the intent of the behavior, and that these behaviors are interpreted as self-serving actions (Ferris et al., 2002). Similar to organizational cynicism, perceptions of politics are most often viewed as a negative element of organizational life. Both constructs are based on the premise that others are self-serving and lack integrity, and organizational cynics, as well as those who perceive politics, are likely to question the motive of others in the workplace. However, although these constructs overlap, they also differ in significant ways. For instance, individuals who perceive politics in their environment do not always experience negative feelings of anger and disappointment. In fact, some research suggests that some people are pleased to be in a political arena, find political environments beneficial, and may even thrive in such environments without experiencing negativeness (Baron & Markman, 2000; Hochwarter, 2003; Ferris, Perrewè, Anthony, & Gilmore, 2000; Perrewè, Ferris, Frink, & Anthony, 2000;). On the other hand, disappointment, hopelessness, frustration, and anger are essential parts of the definition of cynicism (Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Wanous et al., 1994). Furthermore, perceptions of politics are viewed as an individual’s subjective feelings

10 regarding political behavior (Ferris et al., 2002), whereas cynicism is defined as a specific negative work attitude (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Dean et al., 1998). Based on the distinct and unique characteristics of cynicism, it is contended that organizational cynicism is an important construct in its own right. Though organizational cynicism shares some similarities to other constructs, theoretical evidence supports the notion that it is a distinct construct that merits individual attention (Dean et al., 1998). It is believed that in-depth research related to the origins and consequences of organizational cynicism will produce valuable and unique knowledge pertinent to organizational behavior. Theoretical Foundations of the Study of Organizational Cynicism Expectancy Theory Expectancy theory, as conceptualized by Vroom (1964), suggests that individuals are motivated by the multiplicative function of three components: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. However, recent research has expanded the original concept to reflect a broader theoretical structure. For example a variety of studies have used expectancy theory as a general framework for assessing, interpreting, or evaluating employee behavior, but did not actually test the tenants of the theory (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). This general expectancy theory framework has been used to explain the development and nature of employee cynicism by taking into consideration the environmental factors that serve as important determinants of attitudes and behavior. In keeping with the contributions of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Miller and Grush (1988), the models used in cynicism research viewed individual attitudes as a result of expectations regarding consequences within the organization. Further, scholars studying cynicism about organizational change have suggested that cynical attitudes are, in part, a result of negative expectations concerning the future action of the organization (Reichers et al., 1997; Vance, Brook, & Tesluk, 1996; Wanous et al., 1994). Negative employee expectations of personal benefits and positive organizational outcomes are viewed as underlying causes of cynicism. Attribution Theory In addition to building upon the expectancy framework, cynicism research, especially studies that have concentrated on cynicism about organizational change, also has relied heavily on attribution theory. In particular, attribution theory may be relevant to understanding causality for specific events (Kelly, 1973), to assessing responsibility for specific outcomes (Hamilton,

11 1980), or to assessing the personal qualities of individuals involved in the events being considered (Jones & Davis, 1965). According to the theory, attributions related to causal assessments involve developing explanations for puzzling, unexpected, or complex events (Lord & Smith, 1983). An important concern in assessing causality involves deciding whether certain events would have occurred without the presence of a particular agent (Hamilton, 1980; Lord & Smith, 1983). Attributions concerning responsibility focus on the issues related to whether the dominant actors could have produced dissimilar results by behaving differently. However, it is also noted that responsibility often is attributed to individuals in leadership positions, even if behaving in a different manner would have resulted in the same outcome (Lord & Smith, 1983; Pfeffer, 1977). Additionally, attributions of personal qualities have emphasized individual characteristics such as race, sex, cultural background, appearance (Lord & Smith, 1983), and/or observed behavior (Jones & Davis, 1965) in the process of determining the qualities of individuals that generalize across time and situations. Moreover, attribution theory is applied to organizational cynicism in order to understand an employee’s assessment of causality for particular events and outcomes. Individuals may conclude that organizational efforts are a sham, or that the people making the decisions are not competent. Thus, cynicism is described as an attitude consisting of the futility of proposed initiatives, such as change efforts, along with negative attributions of facilitators (Reichers et al., 1997). Attitude Theory Despite the extensive history of research on attitudes, there is no unanimously agreed- upon definition. However, most theorists agree that: (a) evaluation constitutes a central, perhaps predominant, aspect of attitudes, (b) attitudes are represented in memory, and (c) affective, cognitive, and behavioral antecedents of attitudes can be distinguished, as can affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences of attitudes (Olson & Zanna, 1990, p. 118). Evaluation and representation are used to explain how attitudes are formed and stored. Eagly and Chaiken (1992) argued that attitudes do not materialize until individuals respond evaluatively to an entity, and that once formed, attitudes bring about evaluative responses when the object is subsequently encountered. A second common assumption among researchers is that attitudes are represented in memory (Olson & Zanna, 1990). For instance, attitudes have been

12 characterized as knowledge structures (Anderson & Armstrong, 1989; Kruglanski, 1989), and as associative networks of interconnected evaluations and beliefs (Fazio, 1990; Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1989). These perspectives insinuate that elicitation of one attitude or belief will make related attitudes and beliefs more accessible through a process of dispersal activation. According to this process, attitudes about a new or unfamiliar phenomenon are influenced or activated by existing attitudes about things that are topically similar (Fazio, 1990; Kruglanski, 1989; Tourangeau, Rasinski, & Bradburn, 1991). One model that integrates the representational and evaluative aspects of attitudes is the sociocognitive model proposed by Pratkanis and Greenwald (1989). Using the ideology of social cognition, Pratkanis and Greenwald explained how attitudes provide simple approaches for problem-solving, organizing memory for events, and maintaining self- worth. These authors viewed attitudes as cognitive representations of evaluations that serve a vital role in relating an individual to the social world. The affective, cognitive, and behavioral correlates of attitudes also have been influential from the very beginning of research on this concept (see McGuire, 1985). Instead of assuming that all attitudes necessarily have affective, cognitive, and behavioral components, most recent researchers have viewed these domains as correlates of attitudes. For example, Zanna and Rempel (1988) posited that attitudes can be based upon, or developed from, affective, cognitive, and behavioral information. Furthermore, Eagly and Chaiken (1992) explained that attitudes can generate affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses. However, it is also recognized that attitudes can originate from, and/or result in, any one or all three components (Olson & Zanna, 1990). Although most studies of organizational cynicism (e. g., Abraham, 2000; Andersson, 1996; Johnson, & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003) have defined the construct as a negative attitude, few investigations explicitly examined the various components and attributes associated with attitudes in general. One exception is Dean et al. (1998), who defined and discussed organizational cynicism as an attitude consisting of affective, cognitive, and behavioral components. Their conceptualization is considered an important work that helps to establish a sound theoretical framework for understanding general organizational cynicism.

13 Social Exchange Theory Researchers have argued that social exchange theory should be examined as the conceptual underpinnings of organizational cynicism (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Social exchanges between employees are anchored in self-interest, and typically involve interdependency or mutual dependency (Huston & Burgess, 1979). Blau's (1964) exchange theory suggested that social exchange occurs when an individual is attracted to another, and expects that associating with that person will be in some way self-rewarding. It is further argued that this interest in the expected social rewards draws people to one another (Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2002). Two important assumptions associated with Blau’s theory are that exchange is based on the principle of mutual reciprocity, and that high-quality exchange relationships are characterized by “earned” trust. It is asserted that a universal norm of reciprocity, which obligates those who receive benefits to compensate the contributor, govern the exchange process (Gouldner, 1960). It is further posited that the primary determinants of exchange relationship strength are participants’ expected costs and benefits (Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Social exchange in organizations is described as the voluntary actions of people that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring from others (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Blau, 1964). It includes the belief that, whereas there is an expectation of some future return for a given favor, the exact nature of the return favor is never specified in advance. Instead, it is left to the discretion of the person doing the favor (Blau, 1964). Accordingly, research in management has focused on the nature of employee social exchange relationships, and their effects on work behaviors and attitudes. For example, social exchange has been used to explain employee commitment and citizenship behaviors (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). In keeping with this line of research, it is argued that the negative attitudes, such as cynicism, are the result of low-quality social exchange relationships. Specifically, Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly (2003) examined organizational cynicism as a reaction to employment-related social exchange violations. According to this ideology, cynicism results from violations of specific promises to the employee, violations of generalized expectations, and/or observed violation experiences of others.

14 Cynicism in Other Disciplines In recent times, the general public, professionals, and politicians have discussed and examined the effects of cynicism on the American economy. For example, in light of existing nationally publicized corporate scandals and financial misdealings of corporate executives, issues and debates on cynicism have become the topic of concern among practitioners and laypersons, and have been discussed in professional journals, newspapers, and on the Internet. However, as discussed earlier, scholars in various academic disciplines have taken a less “faddish” approach to cynicism, and have examined it as a stable component of human nature and our society. For instance, studies related to cynicism can be traced back to early work in the social psychology domain (Cook & Medley, 1954). Also, there has been considerable scholarly inquiry pertaining to cynicism in the areas of social work (Stevens & O’Neil, 1983), law enforcement (Niederhoffer, 1967), criminology (Farmer, 1977), and the medical profession (Becker & Gear, 1961). Conversely, cynicism has received limited attention in organizational domains. The few studies undertaken primarily have been conducted in the management field. Thus, in addition to discussing studies specific to management, this dissertation reviews research from the aforementioned areas that are relevant to the study of organizational cynicism. Background on Psychosocial Aspects of Cynicism Historically, research has viewed cynicism as a stable personality characteristic (Cook & Medley, 1954). Growth in this area has contributed greatly to our understanding of possible social outcomes associated with cynicism, which can be traced back to the work of Cook and Medley (1954). This research identified cynicism as a general tendency towards distrust and suspicion. Multiple studies in the psychology and sociology fields built upon these findings, produced results implicating cynicism as a significant factor that affects individuals’ social lives in various organized settings (Smith et al., 1988), and linked it to various health risks (Hart, 1999; Smith, Cranford, & Mann, 2000). Some of the psychosocial cynicism work considered to be most significant to the effects of cynicism in organizations is discussed. Research by Smith et al. (1988) clarified their interpretation of the Cook Medley Hostility Scale (Ho) as primarily a measure of cynical hostility. They stated that high scorers on the Ho scale were seen as likely to experience anger, were bitter and resentful, and viewed others with distrust and resentment. Likewise, Smith et al. (1988) and Costa et al. (1986) labeled the scale a

15 measure of cynicism. Because highly cynical individuals are likely to view the interpersonal world as an exasperating struggle that requires watchfulness, cynics view others as objects to be used and manipulated, but rarely trusted (Smith & Frohm, 1985). Also, they may be expected to experience more daily stressors and interpersonal conflicts, and have less satisfying social networks across most interpersonal domains (Smith & Frohm, 1985; Smith et al., 1988). Second, findings indicated that high Ho subjects reported smaller social networks, more negative life change, and fewer psychosocial assets and social support than low Ho scorers. Additionally, cynically hostile persons reported greater levels of family conflict, suggesting that the families of cynically hostile people are unlikely to be a source of support and instead are a source of stress. Likewise, higher levels of cynical hostility were associated with lower marital satisfaction, greater marital conflict, and lower perceived regard from their spouses. Finally, and most pertinent to organizational studies, cynical hostility was associated with increased levels of stress in the interpersonal aspects of the job. Specifically, cynicism affected relationships involving supervisors, co-worker, and subordinates. The stress experienced in this domain was not associated with the task itself and was believed to be the result of the negative view of the motives and intentions of others that is central to cynicism. Thus, at work and in other domains of life, cynical hostility is associated with reports of more stress and fewer social resources (Smith et al., 1988). Lepore (1995) tested whether highly cynical people benefit less from social support than individuals low in cynicism. This is an important issue to consider because a lack of social support and excessive hostility appear to increase an individual's risk for heart disease and coronary-related deaths (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Lepore (1995) asserted that cynicism and social support exert opposing effects on the reactions to stressors. He further suggested that stress reactivity is exacerbated because of the hostility and mistrust that is inherent in these individuals. Moreover, because of the general attitude of mistrust, cynics might not benefit from social support, even if it is available. The results provided support for this theory by indicating that interpersonal stressors mainly affected individuals high in cynicism. Additionally, Lepore (1995) illustrated the importance of studying person-by-situation interactions. Based on findings from this study, it appears that not all individuals respond positively to social support. In addition to having conflict and generally unsupportive interpersonal relationships, highly cynical persons are not likely to receive substantial benefits

16 from simple support interventions. Thus, a highly cynical individual may not be able to rely on traditional coping resources, such as social support (Lepore, 1995). Empirical results showed that cynical hostility was inversely related to the perceived availability of social support (i.e., belongingness support, appraisal support, self-esteem support, and tangible support) in both males and females, and provided evidence for the theoretical proposition that deficiencies in protective resources may be of special significance to hostile individuals (Hart, 1999). The magnitude of the inverse association was significantly stronger among females than males, indicating that gender moderates the relationship between hostility and social support, and that effects are particularly specific to females. Analyses revealed that among females, hostility was most strongly related to belongingness support. These findings suggested that those who scored high on cynical hostility see themselves as isolated, alone, and distant from others. Based on theory and research from the broader social support literature, it is argued that a sense of belonging represents a critical aspect of the social support process, and that deficiencies in this area may be especially harmful (Lee & Robinson, 1995; Newcomb, 1990). Taken together, these studies suggest that cynicism has varying effects on multi-dimensional social support processes. In addition to studying relationships between cynicism and social support, psychologists and sociologists also have focused on emotional and health outcomes (e.g., Larkin, Martin, & McClain, 2002; Smith et al., 2000). For instance, Smith et al. (2000) conducted a study that made two main contributions related to cynicism. First, cynical hostility was identified as an important contributor to heart disease independently of any interactions with demographic characteristics, such as gender. Secondly, results showed that cynical hostility primarily correlated with cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Surprisingly, on combined physical/emotional stress tasks, high hostiles demonstrated less of a negative reaction than low hostiles. Smith et al. (2000) suggested that these results might have occurred because emotional negativity is more novel to low than to high hostiles. Furthermore, they alleged that individuals high in cynical hostility experience, and may even create, negative emotional stimuli, and, therefore, might be quite habituated to such stimuli. In other words, perhaps cynics have become “immune” to the negativity that they experience from day to day. The negative outlook and pessimistic way of life of cynics may lead to less negative responses to physical and emotional

17 stress, and greater coping ability in less than desirable situations (Davidson & Smith 1991; Smith et al., 2000). Although several studies have focused on the emotions and emotional reactions of cynics, Larkin et al. (2002) were among the few researchers to consider the effects that cynical hostility might have on the perception of the emotions of others. Larkin et al. carried out an experiment to test the relationship between cynical hostility and accuracy of decoding facial expression of emotions. They found support for the hypothesis that hostile persons detected facial displays of emotion less accurately than non-hostile individuals. Specifically, higher cynical hostility scores were associated with a greater number of misperceived disgust and happiness errors. During this investigation, it was discovered that expressions of disgust were most likely perceived as anger and expressions of happiness as being neutral emotional expressions. At a general level, the results suggest that cynicism interferes with individuals’ perceptions of certain facial expression of emotions. Specifically, it is noted that cynical people tend to interpret the emotional expression of others in a way consistent with a hostile predisposition. It was concluded that cynical persons misperceive signals for both social avoidance and approach (Larkin et al., 2002). As such, cynical hostility may be viewed as a limitation to what Goleman (1995) referred to as emotional intelligence. Cynicism in the Workplace The Study of Occupational Cynicism A separate stream of research that addressed cynicism within specific occupational fields began a little less than a decade after psychosocial cynicism research was initiated. This stream of research is especially relevant to what is now termed organizational cynicism in that it conceptualized cynicism as an unstable individual trait subject to influence by situational factors such as occupational characteristics. According to Becker and Geer (1961), cynicism develops in “specific situations” and therefore appears in “situation-bound” states. Prior to this, most studies conceptualized cynicism as an innate personal characteristic (Cook & Medley, 1954). Unlike general organizational cynicism, occupational cynicism researchers were concerned with, and examined the effects of, specific occupational characteristics on employee cynicism, and they did not claim widespread generalization across occupational boundaries. Many of the initial studies of cynicism at work came from the field of police administration (Anson, Mann, & Sherman, 1986; Niederhoffer, 1967; O’Connell, Holzman, & Armandi, 1986;

18 Regoli, Crank, & Rivera, 1990) and social work/human services (Meyerson,1990; Stevens & O’Neil, 1983). Occupational Cynicism in Police Work Niederhoffer’s (1967) book on police officers' cynicism serves as a backdrop to numerous empirical works and correlates of cynicism within occupations. He argued that cynicism is a system of beliefs deeply embedded in the culture of the police world. Additionally, he argued that those working in the police field are particularly susceptible to cynicism, and that when they develop this attitude, they lose faith in people, society, and eventually themselves. Durkheim’s (1951) conceptualization of anomie is central to Niederhoffer’s attempt to understand urban police officers’ reactions to changes within the social order. Accordingly, as social values change, anomie can set in, causing a sinister societal state, characterized by apathy, confusion, frustration, despair, and the absence of standards. Niederhoffer (1967) also is credited for developing one of the first scales designed to measure cynicism within the workplace. The Niederhoffer model identified etiological sources of cynicism, such as interpersonal relationships with administration. (Anson et al., 1986). This scale treated cynicism as a condition brought on by the presence or absence of specific variables in the police environment. Many of these variables related specifically to administrative procedures and economical issues (Anson et al., 1986). A major contribution of O’Connell et al. (1986) was their identification of two sub- dimensions of police cynicism. They were the first to suggest that police cynicism could be affected by organizational and work conditions. In addition to theorizing two-dimensional cynicism, they also developed scales to measure both dimensions. Using the newly developed scales, O’Connell and colleagues tested the effects of cynicism on police modes of adaptation. Findings from their research indicated that not all cynicism relationships are linear. Specifically, they discovered that the relationship between tenure and organization cynicism was curvilinear. They also found that organizational cynicism was not related to variables associated with the environment of police organizations. Unexpectedly, organizational cynicism was not related to steadiness of shift, status of assignment, or task complexity. However, work cynicism was related to all of these variables. Continuing in the same area of inquiry, Regoli, Culbertson, and Crank (1990) conducted a study on outcomes relevant to police work. However, the findings from this study are believed

19 to be relevant in contexts beyond police work and other law enforcement fields. They posited that officers with more cynicism toward the decision makers had better working relations with departmental personnel, less job satisfaction, more arrests, and more hostile encounters. When officer cynicism was focused on rules, they had worse relations with department personnel and fewer arrests. Finally, when officers were more cynical towards the respect the public has for police, they had more hostile encounters and worse working relations. Also, important to the advancement of cynicism research, Anson et al. (1986) conducted an important empirical study that called into question and examined the quality of the generally accepted Niederhoffer's (1967) cynicism scale. Findings from this study discredited the repeatability and stability of the Niederhoffer scale, as well as provided evidence for unreliability. These scholars suggested that Niederhoffer’s scales should be revised and/or new scales developed that account for reciprocity, and interaction between lower ranking personnel and higher ranking offices, and how these patterns damage the working attitudes and personality of police. An important point to be taken from the Anson et al. (1986) study is that in order to study and understand cynicism, the development of reliable and valid measures merits priority. The value of research findings depends heavily on whether the measures used are valid (Schwab, 1999). Thus, it is inferred that unstable and internally fragmented measurement instruments can hinder the progress of theory development by producing unreliable findings and results with direct relevance to the theoretical construct being tested. Occupational Cynicism in Social Work Cynicism is considered an attitudinal contaminant of burnout and expression of role ambiguity and conflict that is common in occupations that require care giving as the major task responsibility (Andersson, 1996). Thus, human services is considered an occupational field prone to employee cynicism. Studies, such as Meyerson (1990) and Stevens and O’Neil (1983), have contributed much to understanding cynicism in social work and the social milieus of organizations in general. Stevens and O’Neill (1983) investigated cynicism as it relates to expectations and burnout in the disabilities fields. The expectation of a disconnection between effort and outcome was identified as a main antecedent to employee cynicism concerning the job. Specifically, those who work with disabled patients may have to accept the fact that these individuals will never

20 fully recover, and that they will see little change in patients' conditions as a result of their work. Stevens and O’Neill (1983) further suggested that unmet expectations, along with the lack of available resources, might result in frustration and cynicism towards the clients that workers are trying to help. Cynicism towards clients and their “abnormal” conditions allows workers to depersonalize them, and disconnect themselves from what may be viewed as a hopeless situation. Meyerson (1990) also was instrumental in providing insight into the multi- dimensionality of cynicism. The study conducted by Meyerson is recognized as one of the few qualitative studies of occupational cynicism. She believed that direct observation of employees, over an extended period of time, allowed for a richer understanding of co-worker relationships, and unique expressions of cynical emotions concerning work-related issues. It was reported that cynicism often was expressed in the form of jokes and or cynical remarks. Often, one person served as the organizational cynic who asked numerous questions and voiced what other employees were thinking, but were reluctant to express. The content of jokes and conversation revealed that role conflict and role ambiguity, which were a part of hospital social work, served as significant sources of frustration and unmet expectations that resulted in cynicism. Interestingly, Meyerson (1990) also found that individuals who expressed cynicism were not always expressing complete hopelessness. In fact, most cynical remarks were followed by a statement indicating that things really were not “so bad.” Thus, although cynicism generally is viewed as a socially undesirable attitude, in the case of social workers, it served also as a healthy adaptive response that allowed workers to cope with their working environment (Meyerson, 1990). The healthful form of cynicism was described as expressing resignation and some form of possibility, whereas deleterious cynicism was described as expressing self-defeat and apathy. Cynicism in Educational Organizations There are no known studies of cynicism in educational organizations. However, there have been a few studies that examined burnout among teachers. Research in the school systems has shown that high school teachers exhibit high levels of stress when compared to other white- collar employees (Bransgrove, 1996). Additionally, Hock (1988) concluded that teachers who have high levels of burnout and continue to teach could have a negative impact on their students. Because cynicism has been viewed as synonymous with the depersonalization phase of burnout (Abraham, 2000), these studies are relevant to organizational cynicism awareness in education.

21 To add to these findings, Lamude, Scudder and Furno-Lamude (1992) suggested that student observations of teacher stress explain why students resist teacher efforts to maintain classroom order. Based on past research in this field, it is concluded that cynicism related burnout among teachers appears to be of great importance to the productivity of teachers. However, past research has overlooked organizational cynicism in attempts to understand burnout and depersonalization in the educational arena. Although past investigations of teacher burnout have not focused explicitly on employee cynicism in schools, there has been emphasis on individual characteristics as possible predictor variables (Dorman, 2003). Studies have emphasized background variables, such as marital status, age, years of teaching, and gender, as predictors of burnout (Malik, Mueller, & Meink, 1991). Very few empirical studies have acknowledged the climate of schools and other environmental factors as important variables that influence teacher burnout. Although research on learning environments and negative teacher attitudes has shown progress over the years, few studies utilizing the latest approaches to research have been conducted. One that does is the study by Dorman (2003) that examines the relationships between various aspects of school and classroom climates and each dimension of burnout. This investigation compliments Dorman’s (2003) research that employed school and classroom environment scales to study burnout. Dorman found support for the theory that environmental factors predict emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and other negative individual outcomes. The recognition of workplace perceptions as possible predictors of organizational cynicism is also consistent with Lens and Jesus’ (1999) psychosocial interpretation of stress and burnout among teachers, and Maslach’s (1999) view that understanding the social context is at the heart of understanding and ameliorating teacher burnout. Organizational Cynicism Moving from an examination of occupation cynicism, the work on cynicism in organizations within the organizational sciences is less plentiful. As discussed earlier, the nature and focus of research on organizational cynicism has been varied and based on a number of theoretical frameworks. Nonetheless, conceptualizations and empirical findings have contributed significantly to the understanding of cynicism in the workplace. Despite these differences, most studies have described cynicism as a negative work attitude that has the potential to affect numerous organizational and individual outcomes

22 (Abraham, 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Moreover, it is recognized that cynicism towards the organization may originate from a variety of sources. Below, this dissertation reviews organizational cynicism research, and highlights the findings and major contributions. The literature reviewed is not intended to be exhaustive, but it is believed to be representative of the body of research that has made substantial contributions to theory building, and made a lasting impact on the development and growth of organizational cynicism research. Cynicism Awareness Although Goldner et al. (1977) considered themselves sociologists, their theoretical piece is recognized as one of the earliest research pieces that explicitly examined the effects of cynicism in organizations, with reference to its impact on institutions with strong belief systems. More specifically, they were concerned with the organizational beliefs or “myths” that link motives to consequences for the organization as a unit. It is asserted that indications that the motivations of organizational leaders are not connected to proposed altruistic belief systems pose a threat to the organization. Goldner et al. (1977) used the term cynical knowledge to represent knowledge that presumably altruistic actions and processes of the organization are really designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the legitimacy of the existing authority. Cynical knowledge was described as knowledge that undercuts positive assumptions concerning circumstances for which individuals have no direct information. Goldner et al. further argued that cynical knowledge is knowledge that denies the goodness and sincerity of motives, and results in cynicism towards the organization. Also, they distinguished cynicism from the failure of idealism, and pointed out that there are other threats to organizational belief systems that may damage commitment. The production of realistic knowledge is identified as a factor that may damage the commitment and beliefs of those who are idealistic, but will not necessarily result in cynicism. The theories presented by Goldner et al. (1977) made a valuable contribution to the study of organizational cynicism by clearly explaining that cynical knowledge implies a focus on organizational motives rather than individual idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, they suggested that cynicism is a common part of organizations and the process of organizational change. Moreover, cynical knowledge was recognized as both a product and a producer of institutional change. However, the development of cynicism was not considered independently of the breakdown of institutional beliefs. Additionally, Goldner et al. suggested that there is a link between cynicism

23 and perceptions of organizational politics. Particularly it was suggested that cynical knowledge is especially damaging to institutions because it brings into question the altruism of organizational goals, and indicates that individuals frequently perceive that the behavior of higher officials can be characterized as flowing from political motives. It took more than a decade after Goldner et al. (1977) for organizational cynicism to gain national attention from academicians, practitioners, and the American public in general. This national awareness came about largely as a result of the book authored by Kanter and Mirvis (1989), which was based on a national survey of American employees. The survey research was designed to reveal why cynicism had become rampant in the workplace. Kanter and Mirvis found cynics at the top and bottom of America’s hierarchies yielding widespread mistrust and mutual hostility throughout business and industry. Many societal and organizational factors were implicated as causes of the cynicism epidemic. Some of the causal suspects were lying and intentional deceit in the nation's corporate, government, and religious institutions, the expanding gap between the “haves” and the “have- nots,” high CEO salaries, corporate downsizing, and the mass media. Despite the rampant spread of cynicism, Kanter and Mirvis (1989) asserted that organizations and managers could successfully combat cynicism if they directed timely attention and resources to the issues that decreased employee negativity, and promoted positive outlooks and a sense of community. Subsequent to the eye-opening book of Kanter and Mirvis (1989), Bateman et al. (1992) further illustrated that society is tainted by individuals who hold profoundly negative attitudes towards American organizations. These researchers conducted an empirical study that helped to identify and substantiate some of the potential causes of organizational cynicism previously identified by Kanter and Mirvis (1989). Bateman et al. described cynicism as negative, distrustful attitudes towards authority and institutions. Restructuring of U. S. corporations and mass layoffs were credited for making cynicism a “consensus worldview,” with significant implications for not only the workplace, but also society at large. Bateman et al. (1992) identified the media and other social factors as causes of this negative attitude. Specifically, the film Roger and Me (Moore, 1989) was spotlighted as a film about General Motors’ plant closings and harsh layoffs that helped to spark cynicism towards big business in America. In order to substantiate these notions, two studies of United States and Japanese respondents were conducted to assess attitudes resulting from viewing the film. The

24 first study, conducted in the United States, contrasted the attitudes of individuals who had seen the film to those who were about to view the film. A comparison of responses indicated that those who saw the film were more cynical towards General Motors and American businesses in general than those who did not. The second experiment was conducted in Tokyo, Japan, and it was used to assess the generalizability of the findings of the first experiment and to evaluate attitude change. Findings of both studies were consistent. Important implications can be derived from the Bateman et al. (1992) experiments. First, these studies empirically substantiated the potential of popular media to influence public attitudes towards business. Also, the findings from this study suggested that individuals can develop cynical attitudes towards business based on whether the organization is perceived as treating their employees fairly. Thus, organizational justice can be viewed as an underlying factor that affects cynicism. The foregoing research was instrumental in bringing the presence of cynicism in organizations to the forefront. Even though cynicism was not a celebrated part of organizations, it was definitely a force that impacted the organization, individuals, and work life that could no longer be ignored. As a result, others set out to investigate this phenomenon in an attempt to understand, cope with, and control the spread of employee cynicism. Theoretical Development of Organizational Cynicism Andersson (1996) proposed that psychological contract violations and implied contract violations are primary determinants of employee cynicism. This argument was based on the theory that there are three primary determinants in the development of cynicism: the formulation of unrealistically high expectations; the experience of disappointment at failing to meet these expectations; and, subsequent disillusionment. Andersson (1996) further argued that unmet expectations serve as an underlying theme in micro-level contract violations, and when these expectations are unmet, negative attitudes and behaviors result. Consequently, the area of contract violations was viewed as a useful conceptual framework for identifying predictors and outcomes of employee cynicism (Andersson, 1996). Finally, Andersson (1996) presented cynicism as an employee attitudinal reaction to factors in the organization and job environments, and asserted that by identifying and examining these factors, managers might be able to detect and temper the negative effects of cynicism.

25 Similar to Andersson (1996), Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly’s (2003) theory of cynicism is based on concepts related to perceptions of contract violations. These researchers explored cynicism as one of the differential effects that social exchange violations have on employees, and suggested that when employees do not receive what they expect or desire from their employment relationship, perceptions of psychological contract breach or cynical attitudes may develop. This notion is based on the theory that if social exchanges have different underlying characteristics, then violations of such exchanges may result in different consequences. Essentially, Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly argued that the social exchange expectations that underlie psychological contract breach differ from those that underlie organizational cynicism in their degree of person specificity. Thus, those who experience contract breach may respond differently than those who are cynical. However, it is also acknowledged that psychological contract breach may be a determinant of organizational cynicism. Both of these theories conceptualized cynicism as an employee attitude, and recognized that individual perceptions of the workplace environment have the potential to greatly impact cynicism towards organizations. Additionally, both of these theories limited their focus to individual perceptions of perceived contract violations, and neither explicitly applied attitude theory. Dean et al. (1998) took a different approach to the study of cynicism. Though they built upon past concepts of cynicism, the central focus was on establishing cynicism as a “true” attitude and distinguishing it from other work attitudes. Dean et al. attempted to answer the question, “What is the nature of the extreme negative attitudes expressed by so many employees towards their organization?” In order to address this question, these authors reviewed the cynicism literature of several disciplines. They identified various definitions and theoretical predecessors of organizational cynicism. Dean and colleagues pointed out that cynicism has been examined through numerous theoretical lenses, and has focused on several targets, including other people in general, societal institutions, one’s occupation, top management, and organizational change efforts. Additionally, cynicism was distinguished from other constructs, such as organizational commitment, trust, job satisfaction, and alienation. In an effort to integrate and build upon past cynicism theories, Dean et al. (1998) developed a “new” conceptualization of cynicism. The purpose of this new perspective was to capture the generally understood meaning of the term, and provide a sound foundation for

26 operationalizing and measuring organizational cynicism. Accordingly, organizational cynicism was defined as a negative attitude towards one’s employer that consists of beliefs, affect, and critical behaviors. In accordance with this theory, Dean et al. suggested that the primary belief is that the organization or employer lacks integrity, affect involves negative feelings and emotional reactions, and critical behaviors include strong criticism, pessimistic predictions, meaningful looks, rolling eyes, and smirks. Stated advantages of the Dean et al. (1988) conceptualization are that cynicism is viewed as a state, not a trait; it was not limited to a particular kind of work or occupation, and it rounded out the construct by including belief, affect, and behavior. Another important view presented by these scholars was that although cynicism may or may not be objectively valid or justified, it is personally valid to cynical individuals. It was further noted that cynicism could be functional for the individual and the organization. Specifically, the authors claimed that cynical individuals are less likely to be taken advantage of by others, and that cynics serve as a check on tendencies to be self-interested and underhanded. Foci of Organizational Cynicism Studies Researchers have examined various types and targets of organizational cynicism, and emphasis has been placed on organizational change and specific forms of organizational cynicism. For example, Reichers et al. (1997) essentially is a follow-up study that compliments earlier research on cynicism about organizational change (i.e., Wanous et al., 1994). These scholars centered their focus on a specific form of organizational cynicism that targets change efforts. According to Reichers et al., cynicism about change involves a real loss of faith in the leaders of change, and represents a response to a history of change attempts that were not considered by employees to have been successful, and may arise despite the benign intentions of those responsible for change. Reichers et al. (1997) stressed the importance of understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. They warned that this kind of cynicism can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if cynics refuse to support change, and the lack of employee support might cause failure or limit success, which then reinforces cynical beliefs and continues the cycle of change resistance. Because most change efforts depend on “regular” employees to execute them, cynicism can be an important barrier to change. Furthermore, these authors argued that cynicism

27 about change can spill over into other aspects of work life, causing employees to lose commitment and/or motivation. Reichers et al. (1997) explained that cynicism about organizational change may persist because it serves multiple functions. For instance, it was suggested that cynicism might help people make sense of confusing events in their environment, as well as serve as a defense that protects people from unpleasant thoughts. This theory of organizational change also asserted that people don’t simply decide to become cynical, instead cynical employee attitudes result from experiences and are substantiated because of their useful purposes. Reichers et al. further posited that cynicism can be managed and minimized by planned, conscious managerial efforts As an alternative to focusing on one particular form of cynicism believed to be present in organizations, Abraham (2000) attempted to theoretically clarify the processes by which five forms of cynicism develop, and to empirically relate them to affective outcomes in the workplace. In keeping with the conceptualization of cynicism presented by Dean et al. (1998), Abraham defined cynicism as encompassing affect, behavior, and beliefs. She argued that the core belief is that the principles of honesty, fairness, and sincerity are forfeited to advance the self-interest of leaders, resulting in actions based on concealed motives and deception. Abraham (2000) identified five forms of organizational cynicism. Personality cynicism, societal/institutional cynicism, employee cynicism, organizational change cynicism, and work cynicism were all listed as unique forms of cynicism that affect the organization. Theoretically, each of the five forms originated from different elements in the individual’s life and environment. Personality cynicism is the only form of cynicism that was viewed as an innate stable trait reflecting a generally negative perception of human behavior. The attitudes inherent in the five forms were described within the context of the theories of psychological contract violation, burnout, and person-role conflict. Additionally, Abraham (2000) noted several important roles that cynicism might serve for individuals in the work place. For instance, it was suggested that cynicism may reduce ambiguity, act as a screen to interpret events and maintain consistency between beliefs and reality, and prevent employees from participating wholeheartedly (Wanous et al., 1994). In addition to these roles, cynicism also might serve as a coping mechanism or strategy for thwarted competence, causing depersonalization, distance, and lack of caring (Cordes & Daugherty, 1993).

28 Empirical results from Abraham (2000) showed that all five forms of organizational cynicism were positively related to alienation. Societal cynicism was positively related to commitment, whereas personality and employee cynicism were negatively related to this same outcome. Similarly, societal cynicism was positively related to job satisfaction, whereas personality and organizational change cynicism were negatively related to employees’ satisfaction with their job. Surprisingly, none of the forms of cynicism were significantly related to organizational citizenship behavior. Instead, results showed that organizational cynicism had an indirect effect of citizenship behavior through alienation. The results from Abraham’s (2000) study suggested that some forms of cynicism (e. g., societal cynicism) actually might make workers happier and more committed. These two studies (e.g., Abraham, 2000; Reichers et al., 1997), like others (i.e. Wanous et al., 1994), focused on specific targets and forms of cynicism. The general concept of “organizational cynicism” was implicated, but not highlighted, as the central concept. Accordingly, there is a need for studies that consider a more generalized form of cynicism that can be applied across different contexts and work settings (Brandes, Dharwadkar, & Dean, 1999). Models of Organizational Cynicism Andersson’s (1996) analysis is one of the most comprehensive conceptualizations of cynicism within organizations. This study presented a model that used contract violations as the framework for studying employee cynicism, and included numerous environmental and individual variables. Contracts were recognized as critical features of modern-day businesses in that they serve as an important link between individuals and organizations, and govern their behaviors (Rousseau & Parks, 1993). Although most previous work related to contract theory was studied at the macro-level (Williamson, 1985), Andersson (1996), along with other researchers (e. g. Rousseau & Parks, 1993; Shore & Tetrick, 1995), used contract theory to explain micro-level attitudes and behaviors in organizations. Andersson (1996) posited that employees with low self-esteem, external locus of control, equity sensitivity, high Machiavellianism, or poor work ethic are more likely to hold cynical attitudes as a result of contract violations. Additionally, demographic characteristics were identified as moderators. The model presented by Andersson also identified workplace characteristics as predictors of cynicism. Accordingly, factors in the workplace that might

29 generate perceptions of contract violations, and thereby facilitate the formation of cynical attitudes, were grouped into three broad categories: business environment characteristics, organizational characteristics, and job and role characteristics. It is not surprising that the model presented by Andersson (1996) has been a catalyst for others who seek to explore organizational cynicism. An example of a recently developed model of organizational cynicism that built upon Andersson is that of Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly (2003). The model and empirical results presented by Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly suggested that organizational cynicism may serve as a mediator of the relationship between psychological contract breach and affective work outcomes, although having little to no effect on work behavior outcomes. On the other hand, psychological contract breach was found to have both an indirect and direct effect on affective work outcomes, as well as a direct effect on work-related behavior. Theoretical implications from these findings suggested that feelings of contract breach and organizational cynicism are distinct (though related) concepts and can be explored as such. Although both constructs involve unmet expectations, Johnson and O’Leary (2003) demonstrated that perceptions of psychological contract violations and organizational cynicism are unique concepts that act in very different ways to affect organizational and individual outcomes. Although Andersson and Bateman (1997) did not claim to develop, nor present, a comprehensive model of cynicism, they clearly conducted one of the few empirical studies that examined multiple causes and consequences of cynicism in the workplace. Thus, an implied model was tested. In their study, they plainly defined cynicism as a specific negative attitude not associated with a stable personality characteristic (Guastello et al., 1992). As such, their research explored situational predictors of workplace cynicism, and the potential effects that this attitude of distrust and frustration might have on employee behavior. The predictors identified in this study related to characteristics of upper-level executives and factors directly influenced by upper-level management. For instance, support was found for the predictions that high levels of executive compensation, poor organizational performance, and the announcement of harsh layoffs would lead to increased levels of cynicism. The outcomes considered by Andersson and Bateman (1997) were behavioral, and by examining behavioral outcomes, they were able to study cynical outcomes, as well as the

30 attitude-behavior link. Because organizational cynicism is a negative attitude towards the workplace, it was expected to be linked more closely to negative job intentions than to positive ones. As predicted, cynicism was negatively related to intentions of performing organizational citizenship behaviors. Furthermore, considering the distrustful nature of organizational cynics, a negative relationship between cynicism and intentions to comply with request to engage in unethical behavior was predicted and found. A major contribution of the Andersson and Bateman (1997) research is that they were able to identify and empirically substantiate environmental predictors of organizational cynicism suggested by Kanter and Mirvis (1989). Also, they demonstrated that cynical attitudes held towards the organization were strong enough to trigger behavioral reactions. Additionally, findings from their research suggested that organizational cynicism might have some constructive consequences (i.e., noncompliance to unethical requests). Although past research has produced significant results, there has been little expansion on, or deviation from, established conceptual work on cynicism. Therefore, organizational cynicism model development represents an area of great opportunity. Past researchers have taken into account some of the most obvious predictors of cynicism while overlooking or ignoring other factors that are salient to individual employees (e.g., their personal perceptions and interpretations of the work place). With few exceptions, the interplay between individual perceptions of the organization and personal characteristics remains largely unexplored. Additionally, by expanding the range of consequences considered in studies of organizational cynicism, investigators might be able to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of cynicism in organizational settings. Failure to consider new theoretical models may represent the greatest threat to advancement in this field. For nearly a decade, the predominant model underlying most organizational cynicism research has contained contract violations as its theoretical base. Although this model has merit and has been useful in advancing knowledge related to cynicism in the workplace, even small modifications to existing theory could prove useful. Knowledge-Based Deficiencies and Challenges in Cynicism Research Cynicism literature has been varied and rather scanty (Andersson, 1996). The concept of cynicism has been around for centuries; however, the systematic study of organizational cynicism is still in its infancy (Wanous et al., 2000). Scholars have explored numerous

31 theoretical approaches, and examined a variety of potential causes and effects of cynicism in their attempts to gain deeper insight into cynical attitudes in the workplace. However, few studies have built upon previous work, and there have been only modest attempts to integrate findings from one study to another. Thus, the body of cynicism research can be characterized as informative, yet fragmented. The presence and effects of cynicism in the workplace, as well as the need for knowledge related to the causes and effects of organizational cynicism, long have been recognized and initial conceptualizations have been offered (Andersson, 1996; Dean et al, 1998; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). However, these conceptualizations have provided only partial insight into the phenomenon of cynicism within organizations. Unfortunately, this is the case because such conceptualizations do not reflect an integrated, systematic approach that conceptually and empirically explores the process of organizational cynicism development and its effects on the organization and employees. For example, with the exception of Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly (2003), most of the empirical organizational cynicism research has not developed a model of the cynicism process. Instead, randomly selected causes and consequences have been tested. Johnson and O’Leary- Kelly developed and tested a model of cynicism based on social exchange, but only examined one antecedent, psychological contract violation. The most comprehensive model of organizational cynicism was developed by Andersson (1996). This theoretical model also examined cynicism from a psychological contract violation framework, but proposed several antecedents and moderators. However, no organizational or individual consequences were mentioned, and a test of the model has not been published to date. Antecedents of Organizational Cynicism To date, researchers have examined a limited number of antecedents of organizational cynicism. For example, minimal research has been done on situational factors that are within the immediate control of the organization and management. Furthermore, the most notable studies (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989) have identified industry-level and business-environmental factors, such as layoffs and work force reduction, organizational performance, and high executive pay as primary causes of organizational cynicism. Additionally, the impact of personality characteristics on organizational cynicism has received little attention.

32 Organizational characteristics. A small number of characteristics specific to the organization have been investigated in past studies of cynicism. One conceptual study (Andersson, 1996) and one known empirical study (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003) have examined psychological contract violations. Several other organizational and job characteristics have been applied theoretically, but lack empirical testing. For example, Andersson suggested that organizational characteristics, such as limited voice, discourteous interpersonal treatment, managerial incompetence, and the use of certain management techniques, indirectly affect organizational cynicism. It was further proposed that job and role characteristics such as role ambiguity, role conflict, and work overload impacted cynicism. However, it is important to note that, according to Anderson’s model, perceived contract violation mediated the effects of both organizational and job characteristics. Personality characteristics. Unless studies focused on trait cynicism, very little attention was given to personality variables. Contrary to most studies, Reichers et al. (1997) considered negative affectivity, and Wilkerson et al. (2003) considered need for achievement as antecedents of cynicism. A few other studies have used personality and other individual difference characteristics as control variables (i.e., Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Wilkerson et al., 2003). Additionally, personality characteristics were considered as moderator variables in Andersson’s (1996) conceptualization. Moderators of Organizational Cynicism Other than Andersson (1996), no known published studies have considered the effects of moderator variables on the causal relationships and none have taken into account the potential impact that moderators might have on relationships between cynicism and organizational outcomes. Outcomes of Organizational Cynicism A number of cynicism outcomes have been studied, and the outcome that has garnered the most attention is organizational citizenship (Abraham 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Wilkerson et al., 2003). Results pertaining to the relationship between cynicism and citizenship behavior have been inconsistent, in that some studies have found negative relationships, and others have found that cynicism had no significant effect on organizational citizenship behaviors.

33 Other outcomes that have been investigated are job satisfaction, absenteeism, job commitment (Abraham, 2000; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), alienation (Abraham, 2000), emotional exhaustion, and in-role performance (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Additionally, despite the negative view of organizational cynicism in organizations, research has established that cynicism also has the potential to be constructive. For example, Andersson and Bateman (1997) found a negative relationship between cynicism and the intent to comply with unethical requests made by managers. Summary The state of organizational cynicism research is such that researchers understand certain aspects of cynicism, yet lack an informed understanding of the effects and processes by which it is developed and spreads throughout organizations. Further research is needed in order to gain a better understanding of this phenomenon that is pervasive in modern organizations, and to find better ways to manage or prevent it (Dean et al., 1998). Using the social exchange and attitude theoretical frameworks, this dissertation offers an integrative model of organizational cynicism in which antecedents, moderators, and consequences are explored. This model is proposed, and relevant hypotheses are offered, in the following chapter.

34 CHAPTER THREE MODEL AND HYPOTHESES To date, there has been no integrative model of organizational cynicism offered in the literature. This is surprising given the widespread presence of cynicism in organizations, practical implications associated with it, and the research evidence that has established the importance of cynicism in organizational functioning. To address this limitation in the literature, this dissertation proposes and tests a model of organizational cynicism that incorporates elements suggested by Andersson (1996), Dean et al. (1998), and the existing body of cynicism research in organizations. The model is presented in Figure 1, and examines antecedents, moderators, and consequences of organizational cynicism. The following antecedents of organizational cynicism are presented and empirically tested: perceptions of organizational politics, organizational justice perceptions, psychological contract violations, and perceived organizational support. Additionally, the moderating effects of locus of control and workplace spirituality on the relationship between the aforementioned antecedents and cynicism are investigated. Finally, this research examines job strain, organizational citizenship behavior, workplace deviance, and job performance as potential outcomes of organizational cynicism. Antecedents of Cynicism Perceptions of Organizational Politics Perceptions of organizational politics refers to an individual’s attributions to behaviors of self-serving intent, and is defined as an individual’s personal evaluation about the degree to which the workplace is characterized by co-workers and supervisors who exhibit such self- serving behavior (Ferris et al., 2000). Some specific self-serving behaviors include backstabbing, sabotage, taking credit for things for which they are not really responsible, and hoarding resources. Considering the nature of political behavior, it is not surprising that politicking has been associated with numerous negative organizational outcomes (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Kacmar & Baron, 1999). Cynicism towards organizations is characterized by the attribution of self-interested behavior to managers and co-workers, the assumption that the organization operates under apparent self-interests, and these conditions are unlikely to change (Brandes-Duncan, 1995). It is argued that politics perceptions are a major source that contributes to these assumptions and

35 attributions of self-interest. When employees work in an environment that they believe is pervaded by people looking out only for themselves, they are expected to be self-protective and skeptical. As a result, perceptions of politics have been related to diminished trust and lower levels of intergroup cooperation (Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995). Moreover, it has been noted that manipulation and sinister behaviors, which often represent political behaviors, are derogatory, and inhibit the development of trust in organizations (Macher, 1986). Past research has substantiated the assertion that perceived politics affects interpersonal trust (Kumar & Ghadially, 1989), and makes personal investments in an organization riskier (Cropanzano et al., 1997). Overall, perceptions of politics are believed to affect perceptions of integrity and contribute to negative emotions such as contempt and distress (Dean et al., 1998). These emotions have been closely linked to cynical attitudes (Abraham, 2000; Andersson, 1996; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). In addition to this, perceptions of politics can be viewed as a form of cynical knowledge. Goldner et al. (1977) described cynical knowledge as knowledge that presumable altruistic actions or procedures of the organization serve the purpose of existing authority or only a few organizational members. Organizational members may construct their own explanations for various organizational circumstances about which they have no absolute information. However, these explanations reflect their perceptions of reality. Based on the arguments of Lewin (1936) and Porter (1976), it is reasoned that perceived politics will drive individuals associated cognitive and behavioral responses. Thus, it is posited that perceptions of politics are a form of cynical knowledge that undercuts the altruistic assumptions that might otherwise be associated with the workplace. Furthermore, perceptions of politics bring into question the goodness and sincerity of motives of people in organizations. In sum, the self-interest, negative emotions, distress and lack of trust associated with perceptions of politics contribute positively to organizational cynicism. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated. Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of politics will be positively related to organizational cynicism. Organizational Justice There is considerable evidence that fairness is an important dimension affecting employees’ actions and reactions within organizations (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,

36 2000). Research has indicated that employees are concerned about the rewards that come their way, the manner in which rewards are presented, and the process by which rewards and consequences are determined. Thus, organizational justice (i.e., distributive, interactional, and formal) is expected to have an effect on employees. A number of scholars have argued that if employees perceive organizational decisions and managerial actions to be biased or unfair, they are likely to experience feelings of resentment, outrage, and even anger (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999). Examples of reactions to perceived injustice have been found to be positively related to absenteeism (Hulin, 1991), employee theft (Greenberg, 1990), and feelings of hostility (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Reactive content theories of justice that focus on how individuals respond to unfair treatment provide further insight concerning possible outcomes of perceived injustice (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Despite various differences in the specifics of each reactive content theory, they all share the common notion that individuals respond to unfair relationships by displaying certain negative attitudes and emotions. The attitudes associated with justice are expected to affect opinions of supervisors (Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000), and levels of trust associated with the organization (Andersson, 1996). Additionally, it is expected that social aspects and context will affect employees’ reactions to perceived justice, and thus, are pertinent to cynical attitudes towards the organization. Although most past research has focused on how individuals respond to perceived acts of personal injustice, recent studies also have suggested that individuals observe the treatment of others in their group, and make judgments about organizational justice (James & Cropanzano, 1990). Tyler and Lind (1992) argued that perceived injustice against one group member may be perceived as an injustice against all members of the group. When such is the case, the unfair treatment will be taken personally by each group member. It is further expected that this kind of indirect unfairness will evoke feelings of distrust and frustration. Bateman et al. (1992) provided evidence of such injustice-distrust/frustration relationships. In research examining the effects of media propaganda, they found that the attitudes of people, who were not directly mistreated, were affected after being exposed to information about the mistreatment of other fellow citizens who were employed by the organization. Results showed that individuals became more distrustful, frustrated, and suspicious

37 of organizations through indirect experiences of injustice. Thus, the following hypothesis is presented. Hypothesis 2: Perceived organizational justice will be negatively related to organizational cynicism. Psychological Contract Violation Psychological contracts represent the belief in an obligation of reciprocity between an employee and an organization (Rousseau, 1989). These contracts are highly subjective assumptions of good faith and trust concerning the employee-organizational exchanges existing in the minds of the employees (Andersson, 1996). When individuals feel that the organization has failed to uphold its obligations, contract violations occur (Shore & Tetrick, 1995). According to Rousseau (1989), when a contract is violated, mistrust arises and intense emotional and attitudinal responses evolve. Violation experiences are believed to engender feelings of unfairness and unmet expectations that damage the sense of reciprocal obligation between employer and employee. Anger, outrage, and resentment have been identified as some of the negative effects associated with psychological contract violations (Andersson, 1996; Rousseau, 1989). The cynicism literature has identified the experience of unmet expectations, and the feelings of disappointment that go along with it, as one of the primary determinants in the development of cynicism. In fact, unmet expectations have been labeled as a direct antecedent of cynicism in organizations (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). The definitions and elements of both cynicism and psychological contract violations suggest that an employee-related social exchange is inherent in both constructs (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Not surprisingly, it also has been argued that these two forms of unmet expectations are linked (Andersson, 1996; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), suggesting that psychological contract violation is a fundamental determinant of employee cynicism. Moreover, employees expect their organization to fulfill certain obligations in return for their allegiance and hard work. When the organization does not meet its expectations, negative attitudes and behaviors are bound to result (Rousseau & Parks, 1993). Because psychological contract violation involves elements of delayed payment and reliance, it is considered to be among the most potent forms of unmet expectations causing outrage, distrust, and resentment among employees (Andersson, 1996; Rousseau & Parks, 1993). The negativeness associated

38 with such violation is believed to trigger the development of cynical attitudes towards the organization (Andersson, 1996). However, to date, there has been only one direct test of the relationship between psychological contract violations and cynicism (Johnson & O’Leary, 2003). Thus, based on, and in keeping with, previous theorizing and empirical evidence, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive relationship between psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Perceived Organizational Support Research related to concepts of social exchange (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) has suggested that employees’ attitudes towards the organization can be affected by global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) labeled this belief perceived organizational support (POS). High levels of organizational support are thought to create obligations within the person to repay the organization, and are associated with a trust that the organization will fulfill its exchange obligations (Settoon et al., 1996). Previous studies have examined the potential benefits of high quality organization-employee social exchange relationships. For instance, POS has been linked to organizational commitment, positive job-related affect, job involvement, and performance (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). However, no known studies have explicitly addressed the potential negative repercussions of low levels of POS. It is argued that when employees perceive that they have been treated unfavorably by the organization, the perceived treatment might serve as an indication that their contributions have little value, and that the organization is not concerned about their well-being. As a result, these employees are likely to develop negative beliefs and feeling towards their employing organization that further damage the exchange relationship. Furthermore, negative experiences related to the exchange relationship can be expected to lead to strong negative emotions rooted in suspicion that the organization may be trying to take advantage of employee efforts, which may leave workers feeling discontented and detached from the work environment. This lack of faith and trust in the organization, and negative feelings associated with them, are likely to contribute to the development of negative employee attitudes directed specifically towards the organization that employees believe has failed to abide by the norms of

39 reciprocity. In keeping with the organizational cynicism literature, negative experiences and pessimistic expectations may induce gloomy affect, cynical beliefs and disobliging behaviors (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Reichers et al., 1997). Thus, it appears that levels of perceived organizational support will have an effect on organizational cynicism. Hypothesis 4: Perceived organizational support will be negatively related to organizational cynicism. Moderators of Cynicism Relationships The relationships between individual employees’ perceptions of the organization and the development of cynicism towards the organization may not always be simple and unaffected by other factors. Andersson (1996) asserted that certain individual characteristics can predispose employees to react with negative attitudes. Locus of control was among the variables identified in Andersson’s (1996) conceptual model, and it has been found to be a useful moderator of other organizational relationships, such as, the relationships between personal values and ethical behavior (Lin & Ding, 2003), and work stressors and felt stress (Roberts, Lapidus, & Chonko, 1997). The other variable that is examined as a moderator is workplace spirituality. Although this variable has received minimal attention as a moderator of work antecedents and outcomes, recent theories concerning spirituality in the workplace (Kolodinsky, Bowen, & Ferris, 2003; Zellers, & Perrewè, 2003) have provided convincing arguments regarding the influence of employee spirituality and its effects on organizational life. By incorporating locus of control and workplace spirituality in this research design, the variability that might exist in employees’ reactions to situational variables, and possible differences in the development of cynical attitudes towards the organization is acknowledged. Furthermore, it is recognized that not all employees who hold negative perceptions of the organization for which they work become cynical nor experience the same levels of cynicism intensity. It is believed that locus of control and individual spirituality can influence how individuals are affected by interpreted situations, and thus, affect the development of cynicism. Locus of Control The concept of internal-external locus of control (Rotter, 1966; Spector, 1982) classifies individuals as either attributing the cause of and/or control over events to themselves (internals) or to their environment (externals). In comparison with externals, internals generally see

40 environmental situations as being less important and believe that they have the power to counteract environmental threats. An insecure and threatening environment plagued by politics, injustice and unfairness, and low organizational support may cause significantly different responses between internal and externals. Furthermore, this construct addresses assumptions that people make about the responsibility for good and bad events (Roberts et al., 1997). In other words, locus of control is based on the person’s expectancy that his/her behavior will produce particular outcomes and results. It was concluded that those with internal locus of control attribute the cause of events to be within themselves, whereas externals feel that the cause lies outside of their abilities (Rotter, 1966). This lack of control is believed to aid in the development of affective aspects of organizational cynicism. Additionally, locus of control has been linked to coping behavior (Roberts et al., 1997; Spector & O’Connell, 1994). Research has indicated that variations in coping styles actually exist between internal and externals (Syrotnick & D’Arcy, 1982). Internals were better able to navigate through the work environment by obtaining and utilizing information more effectively, and making better use of their work-relevant experience to improve performance (Rose & Veiga, 1984). Such cognitive differences, in combination with a generalized belief in the efficacy of individuals’ own abilities, may provide internals with a stronger foundation for coping with perceived negative elements in the organizational environment. Finally, it is expected that people who believe that they have control over their environment might interpret uncertainties and obstacles as challenging opportunities. On the contrary, those with an external control perspective might perceive the same situation as threatening and stressful, possibly resulting in feelings of frustration, anger, and hopelessness. Moreover, the effects of locus of control on the manifestation of organizational cynicism may be explained by the belief that workers with an internal locus of control have faith in their ability to accomplish self-appointed objectives, and to transform the environment (Klein & Wasserstein- Warnet, 2000), whereas those with an external locus of control feel more vulnerable to the work environment. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

41 Hypothesis 5a: Locus of control will moderate the relationship between perceived organizational politics and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more positive relationship between perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism for those with external locus of control than for those with internal locus of control. Hypothesis 5b: Locus of control will moderate the relationship between perceived organizational justice and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more positive relationship between injustice and organizational cynicism for those with external locus of control than for those with internal locus of control. Hypothesis 5c: Locus of control will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more positive relationship between psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism for those with external locus of control than for those with internal locus of control. Hypothesis 5d: Locus of control will moderate the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more negative relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational cynicism for those with internal locus of control than for those with external locus of control. Workplace Spirituality For the purposes of this dissertation, spirituality refers to a belief in a power apart from one’s own existence, and implies a relationship with a universal power transcending everyday sense-bound reality (Conner et al., 2003). It also defines the search for purpose and meaning, within which ideas of transcendence and immanence are an integral part (Conner et al., 2003; Decker, 1993; King, Speck & Thomas, 1999). In keeping with the view of Zellers and Perrewé (2003), spirituality is characterized as a dynamic process rather than a stable personal trait. Spirituality, as conceptualized here, has become the subject of a growing literature in relationship to coping (Conner et al., 2003). In fact, Eisler and Montuori (2003) asserted that spirituality is abstracted from daily life, and enables people to withdraw from what is occurring

42 in their external environment. Specifically, it is believed that spirituality may help individuals cope with the chronic injustice and miseries that are inherent in some relationships. Research that focuses on spirituality in the workplace has suggested that exploration into spiritual issues might result in greater self-discovery, and the building of an increased sense of personal security (Anderson, 2000; Kolodinsky et al., 2003). This self-discovery and security is believed to help combat the insecure feelings employees generally have about their work environment, especially when it is perceived as political (Kolodinsky et al., 2003), unfair, and uncaring. Thus, spirituality might contribute to employees feeling more secure in a holistic sense, even if the organizational environment is not secure. Based on the definition of spirituality and theorizing related to it, it is believed that one reason individuals differ in their reactions to negativity in the work environment is their sense of spirituality. In particular, spirituality is expected to moderate the relationship between negative perceptions of the organization and organizational cynicism. For example, employees who perceive politics, injustice, a lack of support, and organizational violations, are likely to develop a cynical attitude towards the organization. However, these relationships may be moderated by a sense of spirituality. Although the aforementioned perceptions may induce cynicism, if the individual has a strong sense of spirituality, cynicism may be reduced because the person has an internal sense of purpose surrounding his/her life, and believes that there is higher meaning for the events that occur in all aspects of life. With reference to organizational cynicism, a spiritual approach can be helpful in restoring hope, and acquiring a more balanced view about justice and injustice, safety and danger, and good and malevolence (Drescher & Foy, 1995). It has been observed that stronger spiritual beliefs can lead to a greater sense of control, meaning, and deeper intimacy (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Thus, it is believed that spirituality will buffer the effects of negative organizational perceptions, and be associated with more positive attitudes and outlooks. Hypothesis 6a: Spirituality will moderate the relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more positive relationship between perception of politics and organizational cynicism for those with low levels of spirituality than for those with high levels of spirituality.

43 Hypothesis 6b: Spirituality will moderate the relationship between perceived organizational justice and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more positive relationship between perception of injustice and organizational cynicism for those with low levels of spirituality than for those with high levels of spirituality. Hypothesis 6c: Spirituality will moderate the relationship between psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more positive relationship between psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism for those with low levels of spirituality than for those with high levels of spirituality. Hypothesis 6d: Spirituality will moderate the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational cynicism such that, there will be a more negative relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational cynicism for those with high levels of spirituality than for those with low levels of spirituality. Cynicism Outcomes Job Strain The term stress is not uniformly defined in the literature (Roberts et al., 1997). Some have defined stress as any stimuli impacting the individual (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison & Pinneau, 1975), others proposed that it is a response to a demand (Selye, 1976), and still others have suggested that stress is an external force operating on a personal or organizational system (Schuler, 1980). Another illustrative definition described job stress as a condition in which job factors interact with the employee, altering the psychological condition in a manner that requires the person to deviate from normal functioning (Beehr & Newman, 1978). In sum, most agree that a situation is not inherently stressful, but rather the stressfulness of a situation is interpreted by the individual (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1981; Roberts et al., 1997). According to Kahn and Byosiere (1992), stress stimuli arouse stress responses commonly referred to as strain. Strains typically have been classified as physical, psychological, or behavioral (Danna & Griffin, 1999). However, it is also noted that stressors do not always result in negative individual outcomes (Selye, 1982). Although cynicism is not a particularly valued attribute in organizations, it can be functional up to a point for both organizations and individuals

44 (Dean et al., 1998). Individuals who do not believe in the goodness and integrity of others are less likely to be taken advantage of and/or disappointed by the actions of those who lack these qualities (Dean et al., 1998). Additionally, the pessimism associated with organizational cynicism may serve as a defense mechanism, shielding individuals from the further disappointment of unmet expectations. Cynicism may also aid employees in coming up with explanations for unpleasant organizational events (Wanous et al., 1994), which, in turn, reduces ambiguity and prevents them from participating wholeheartedly. Thus, cynicism becomes a coping strategy, causing individuals to distance themselves from job stressors. Moreover, it is argued that organizational cynicism may serve as protection against things related to the organization that are negative and potentially painful, overwhelming, and stressful. It is possible that a certain degree of cynicism provides employees with a more realistic outlook on the workplace, and prevents them from having excessively high expectations at the outset. Consequently, such individuals are less likely to suffer from disillusionment over worklife stressors (Abraham, 2000). Despite the identified protective qualities, it is believed that as cynicism begins to escalate, dysfunctional aspects of the construct become more profound. Malevolence harbored by cynics towards the organization and its representatives is likely to prevent them from drawing upon the support of social networks that have been shown to be one the most powerful buffers against stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985). These cynics’ inherent mistrust isolates them from others, thus barring them from socialization (Abraham, 2000), and leads to estrangement and isolation. Smith et al. (1988) found that individuals who were highly hostile/cynical reported more negative life events and daily hassles than those who were low on the same construct. Constant feelings of being isolated and wronged may lead to disillusionment, and heighten the negative effects of job stressors. Over time, the unremitting negativeness associated with cynicism towards the organization is expected to fatigue employees to the point of burnout, job tension, and other manifestations of job strain. The various elements and characteristics associated with organizational cynicism render it as neither an indisputable reducer nor an indisputable escalator of job related strain. Instead, organizational cynicism is viewed as possessing the potential to serve as both. Thus, it is hypothesized:

45 Hypothesis 7: There will be a nonlinear relationship between organizational cynicism and job strain, assuming a U-shaped form, such that increases in cynicism are associated with decreases in job strain up to a point, but beyond which further increases in cynicism relate to increases in strain. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Research has noted that organizational citizenship is comprised of several characteristically different, yet similar, behaviors. It is suggested that employees can select among these behaviors instead of engaging equally in all of them (Motowidlo, 2000; Organ, 1997; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). It has been further argued that types of organizational citizenship can be classified according to the intended primary beneficiary or target of the behavior (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991). The two forms of citizenship behavior focused on in this study are citizenship behaviors that target organizational effectiveness (i.e., citizenship behavior-organization) and citizenship behaviors intended to benefit individual coworkers (i.e., citizenship behavior-person). Organizational-focused citizenship behavior involves the resolution of work-related problems of an impersonal nature, and deals with organizational issues. These kinds of citizenship behaviors are more instrumental, arising in the course of work performance (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). In contrast, person-focused citizenship behavior provides for self–esteem preservation, and deals with problems of a more personal nature. Such behavior frequently has an affiliative-promotive character (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), and is grounded in friendship and social support (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Although organization and person focuses of citizenship behavior can be considered similar, conceptual distinctions between them have led to the notion that organizational cynicism might affect each construct differently. In most cases, citizenship behavior has been found to be an outcome of high-quality relationships (McAllister, 1995), characterized by mutual concern and social exchanges that satisfy the norms of reciprocity. In these high-quality relationships, citizenship behaviors may provide a means of fulfilling obligations and reinforcing the belief in the fundamental value of the exchange relationship (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). However, because organizational cynics generally hold negative views and affect towards the organization, they are not likely to have high-quality exchange relationships with the organization, and are less likely to engage in behaviors that would foster or promote such relationships.

46 Trust is another concept that should be especially salient where interactions are framed in terms of social exchange (Van Dyne, Vanderwelle, Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, 2000). Sheppard and Sherman (1998) proposed that within high-quality relationships, trust often exists whereby both parties become confident that their interests are protected by the other. The profound distrust and suspicion related to organizational motives that are associated with organizational cynicism (Abraham, 2000; Andersson, 1996) are likely to discourage individuals from engaging in extra-role behaviors that are beneficial to the organization. On the other hand, because organizational cynicism is a specific attitude directed towards the organization, individuals may develop high-quality relationships with coworkers, despite damaged employee-organization relationships. The idea that individuals are involved in the same negative situation may trigger other processes that promote personal citizenship behaviors. For instance, over time, common experiences among individuals create knowledge structures that facilitate perspective taking (Kenny, 1994). Perspective taking is the mental act of adopting the perspective of another person, and is a process that may induce feelings of concern and helping behavior (Davis, 1994; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Additionally, because organizational cynics suspect that the organization is out to take advantage of them and other employees, and that the organization cannot be depended upon (Andersson, 1996), they are likely to view the workplace as oppressive (Stern, Stone, Hopkins, & McMillion, 1990). The notion that the cynic and his/her coworker share the same plight can be expected to induce empathetic concern. Empathetic concern embodies emotional experiences of benevolence and feelings for another in need, and is directly associated with empathetic outcomes like person-focused citizenship behaviors (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Based on the underlying conceptual differences between person- and organization-focused citizenship behaviors, the following two hypotheses are formulated: Hypothesis 8a: There will be a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and organization-focused citizenship behaviors. Hypothesis 8b: There will be a positive relationship between organizational cynicism and person-focused citizenship behaviors. Workplace Deviance The occurrence of workplace deviance and the organizational cost associated with it merits specific, theoretically-centered study into this behavior. However, compared to studies

47 emphasizing positive, more desirable phenomena, such as organizational citizenship (e.g., Organ, 1988), commitment (e.g., Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982), and adaptation (e.g., Hulin, 1991), minimal empirical research has addressed the darker side of employee actions (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Even the cynicism literature is lacking in this area. Employee deviance is described as a voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms, and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of the organization, employees, or both. Employee deviance is considered to be voluntary in that employees either are not motivated to conform to normative expectations of the social setting, or become motivated to violate those expectations (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Deviance is defined in terms of the standards specified by the social group rather than by a system of absolute moral standards (Kaplan, 1975). Research suggests that there is a wide range of reasons for employee engagement in deviant behaviors (Bennett, 1998; Robinson & Greenberg, 1999), ranging from dissatisfaction, role modeling, thrill seeking, and perceived injustice. Nonetheless, deviant organizational behaviors tend to be distinct in that they are confined to the workplace (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). It is argued here that organizational cynicism will motivate employees to violate some organizational norms while diminishing the likelihood that employees will violate others. In order to examine the relationship between organizational cynicism and workplace deviance, two categories of deviant behaviors are considered: counterproductive work behaviors and employee non-compliance. Counterproductive work behavior. Lately, there has been a burst of interest among organizational researchers in counterproductive work behaviors. Aggression, interpersonal conflict, and theft are just a few examples of behaviors that have been included in this category (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Counterproductive work behaviors have been portrayed as both emotion-based (Chen & Spector, 1992, Fox & Spector, 1999) and cognition-based (Skarlicki et al., 1999) responses to workplace experiences. Consistent with this theoretical framework, it is further proposed that attitudinal responses to job stressors and negative organizational perceptions are key links to counterproductive relationships. By definition, counterproductive work behaviors are behaviors intended to demonstrate damaging effects on organizations and their members, and can be overt acts, such as theft, or more passive acts, like purposely not following directions or doing work (Fox et al., 2001).

48 When viewed from an exchange perspective, counterproductive work behavior might be used by employees to decrease perceived imbalances in social exchange relationships. Additionally, counterproductive work behavior is believed to be a manifestation of critical behaviors stemming from negative emotions, such as anger and frustration, and dismal beliefs about the workplace that are associated with organizational cynicism. Organizational cynics tend to believe that their efforts have little effect on the situation, and that they have little control over organizational activities. The lack of control of perceived job stressors increases the likelihood that employees will engage in non-productive behavior (Storm & Spector, 1987). Thus, the following is hypothesized: Hypothesis 9: There will be a positive relationship between organizational cynicism and counterproductive work behaviors. Employee non-compliance. The concept of compliance refers to the tendency of individuals to go along with propositions, requests, or instructions (Gudjuonsson, 1992). In contrast, non-compliance refers to resistance to such propositions, requests, or instructions. In both cases, such individuals are aware that their responses are being influenced by another, and an affirmative or compliant response does not necessarily indicate personal acceptance of the proposition (Gudjoinsson & Sigurdsson, 2003). Gudjonsson (2003) identified two major components of compliance. First, there is an eagerness to please, and a personal need to protect, one’s self esteem in public. Second, there is an avoidance of conflict and confrontation with people, particularly authority figures. The second component is believed to be the primary link between organizational cynicism and compliance. Compliance-coping research suggests that compliance may be used by individuals to cope with pressure from others to partake in activities that they would rather not do (Gudjoinsson & Sigurdsson, 2003). Apathy and detachment can be expected to induce avoidance processes, such as this, rather than promote realistic confrontation. Cynical disillusionment, concerning the pervasiveness of organizational unscrupulousness, is likely to make confrontation and resistance to authority seem not worth the effort. Additionally, in cases where organizational cynics have lost hope in the possibility of positive change, it may seem more practical to simply “go with the flow,” rather than exert futile efforts going against those in control. Accordingly, the following is hypothesized:

49 Hypothesis 10: There will be a positive relationship between organizational cynicism and compliance, reflecting a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and non-compliance. Performance Performance is a key concern of virtually all organizations. Understanding factors that affect individual and organizational performance can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations. In order to facilitate knowledge development in this area, the effects of organizational cynicism on both kinds of performance are examined. No known organizational cynicism studies have examined “performance” as an outcome of cynical attitudes. However, some have theorized about possible relationships, and used other constructs, such as conscientiousness, as indicators of performance (e.g. Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Nonetheless, more exploration is needed on this topic. It is argued here that cynicism will affect individual employee and organizational performance in diverse ways. For instance, individuals who are highly cynical about their current management, and view the organization with disdain, may still value their chosen “jobs” and careers. Others may view their work as necessary for economic survival. In order to keep their jobs and preserve their positions, cynical employees, like other employees who value their jobs, are likely to perform tasks described in their job descriptions to a satisfactory degree. This notion is supported by findings from past research that suggest organizational cynicism is not strongly related to work-related behavior, such as performance (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). On the other hand, it is recognized that both formal job tasks and job behaviors not found in the formal job description are critical to overall organizational performance. Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) argued that contextual performance contributes significantly to the effective operation of organizations. Organ (1988) also argued that extra-role aspects of performance directly promote the effective functioning of an organization. The behavioral elements common to Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) contextual performance and Organ’s (1988) citizenship behavior are presumed to be important because they sustain and enhance the organization. Given that essential elements of the social exchange process, such as the perception of organizational fairness, integrity, and trustworthiness, are destroyed by organizational cynicism, it unlikely that cynical individuals are going to voluntarily go above and beyond their job requirements to perform acts that benefit the organization. In keeping with this argument,

50 Reichers et al. (1997) found that cynical individuals exhibited less motivation to work hard, and were less committed to the organization. Therefore, the following two hypothesis are formulated: Hypothesis 11a: Organizational cynicism will demonstrate no relationship with individual employee performance. Hypothesis 11b: There will be a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational performance.

51 CHAPTER FOUR METHODS To date, most of the empirical studies on organizational cynicism have been scenario- based experiments (Andersson & Bateman, 1997) or general opinion surveys (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), and they have been focused on specific targets of organizational cynicism, including organizational change efforts, hypothetical companies, and executives (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 1994). In order to advance the field’s understanding of organizational cynicism, studies that consider a more generalized conceptualization of cynicism (i.e., one’s employing organization), which can be applied across many different organizational settings, are needed (Brandes et al., 1999). Thus, a field study using real employees in their natural work environment is conducted to test the linkages proposed in the model offered in this dissertation (See Figure 1). Specifically, this field study was conducted in seventeen schools of a single school district whereby employees were asked to participate voluntarily in the completion of a questionnaire to asses the measures involved in testing the dissertation model. This chapter describes the data collection procedures, participants, instruments, and data analysis techniques used in the current research. Participants and Procedures Data Collection Approval to conduct the current research was obtained from the superintendent and 17 individual principals in a rural school district in the Southeastern region of the United States. The school district provided a comprehensive list of all employees allowing access to its principals, teachers, teacher’s aides, and other school staff members for participation in this research. Administrators in this district also allowed access to archival data related to school and individual employee performance. The study utilized a research design in which employees’ responses to a questionnaire were coded in order to match their responses to archival data related to school and individual employee performance. Surveys were used to gather data from employees. Specifically, data were gathered on the following variables needed to test the hypotheses outlined in Chapter Three: perceptions of organizational politics, perceived organizational justice, psychological contract violation, perceived organizational support, locus of control, spirituality, organizational cynicism, job strain, citizenship behaviors, and workplace deviance. Additionally, the following

52 controls were gathered from employee respondents: positive affect, negative affect, position, work experience, age, gender, education, and race. The cover letter, survey, and answer sheet were hand delivered to each school and placed directly in each employee’s personal mailbox. The anonymity of the respondents was ensured in the cover letter. All responses and inquiries were directed to the researcher at Florida State University. To increase response rates each survey was accompanied by a 9 x 12 reply envelope containing no identification information. Respondents were asked to put the completed answer sheets in the envelope and place it in an on-site drop box supplied by the researcher. The researcher collected completed surveys from each school. After retrieving the completed surveys, respondents were matched with their schools and performance evaluations. School grade and performance appraisal scores were obtained from the matching archival data. Protocol approval for the survey was obtained from the Florida State University Institutional Review Board, Human Subjects Committee (See Attachment 2). Sample size. In order to calculate the appropriate sample size, the procedure outlined by Green (1991) was followed. Specifically, Green (1991) suggested a two-step procedure for determining the sample size necessary to conduct a regression analysis. This procedure is outlined below. First, lambda (L) is calculated by substituting the appropriate values in the following equation: L= 6.4 + 1.65m - .05m2 , where m is the number of predictors. In the second step, L is substituted into the below equation to calculate the sample size: N = L /f2, where f2 = R2/(1-R2). Rather than calculating the required sample size for each hypothesis, the sample size for the most demanding hypothesis has been calculated, and that number will be used to determine the minimum sample size (Green, 1991). For example, Hypothesis 5a requires three predictors to adequately test the hypothesis. Additionally, the contributed effect size should, at a minimum, reach Cohen’s (1992) convention of R 2 = .13, in order to achieve a minimum effect size. Using the R 2 = .13 figure, the two-step Green (1991) procedure suggests that a sample size of 82 is required to achieve a minimum power of .80. As indicated above, there has been a dearth of empirical field studies in the cynicism area. One such field study of organizational cynicism by Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly (2003)

53 received a response rate of 98%, which is quite high (Dillman, 2000). Using a more conservative anticipated response rate of 30%, a sample size of 274 is necessary. Participants A total of 1,000 surveys were delivered to employees in 17 schools of the participating school district. Responses were obtained from 360 of these individuals (36% response rate). Of the 360 respondents, 78.9% were female, 18.1% were male and 3.1% did not respond to this question. The racial composition of the sample was 17.8% African American, 1.1% Asian, .3% Hispanic, 75.3% White, and 1.9% Other. Additionally, 49.9% of the respondents were teachers, 45.6% were non-instructional staff members and 4.7% did not respond to this question. Demographic information obtained from the school district indicates that 76.9% of the employees are female and 23.1% are male. Of the total number of district workers, 18.4% are African American, .4% Hispanic, .2% Indian, and 81% White. Additionally, the district-wide employee pool is composed of 51% teachers and 49% non-instructional staff. Measures Organizational cynicism. Organizational cynicism is measured using a scale developed by Dean et al. (1998). This measure consists of fourteen items and utilized a five-point response format with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as endpoints. In the present study, the coefficient alpha for this scale was .94. (Please see items 10 through 23 of Section 3 of Attachment 1). Perceived organizational politics. A six-item scale by Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewé, and Johnson (2003) was used to measure perceptions of organizational politics. The items in this scale were developed to tap politics perceptions at work. A five-point response format with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as endpoints is utilized. The coefficient alpha for this scale was .92. (Please see items 1 through 6 of Section 3 of Attachment 1). Perceived organizational justice. Perceived organizational justice was assessed using 12 of the 18 items used by Moorman (1991) to measure distributive, interactional, and formal justice. Four items related to each of the justice factors are included. A five-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) is used. This global measure of organizational justice achieved a coefficient alpha of .93. (Please see items 4 through 15 of Section 1 of Attachment 1).

54 Psychological contract violation. A global measure developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000), which assesses employees’ perceptions of how well their psychological contracts have been fulfilled by their organization, was used to measure psychological contract violation. The measure contained five items with responses on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Robinson and Morrison (2000) reported a Cronbach alpha for this scale of .92. In this study, the internal consistency for the scale was .86. (Please see items 13 through 17 of Section 4 of Attachment 1). Perceived organizational support. Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch's (1997) short version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) was used to assess the extent to which employees perceived that the organization valued their contributions and cared about their well-being. This version of the SPOS contains 8 of the 36 items that loaded highly on the main POS factor reported in the scale's source article by Eisenberger et al. (1986), and that apply to a wide variety of organizations (Eisenberger et al., 1997). Respondents indicate their extent of agreement with each statement using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). These eight items were also used by Lynch, Eisenberger, and Armeli (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the short version of the SPOS indicated a unitary factor structure, and the items showed high internal reliability (Cronbach's α = .90: Eisenberger et al., 1997). The internal consistency for this scale in the current study was .87. (Please see items 7 through 14 of Section 6 of Attachment 1). Work locus of control. A three-item subset of the 16-item scale, designed to measure general control beliefs in work settings (Spector, 1988), was used to assess locus of control. This measure utilized a five-point response format with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as endpoints. The coefficient alpha for this scale was .78. (Please see items 26 through 30 of Section 4 of Attachment 1). General spirituality. General spiritual belief was assessed using a six-item measure developed by Conner et al. (2003), and utilized a five-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scale demonstrated an internal consistency of .80 in the initial study population. In this sample population it demonstrated an internal consistency of .91. (Please see items 21 through 25 of Section 5 of Attachment 1). Job strain. Two manifestations of job strain were measured: burnout and job tension. Employee burnout was assessed using a six-item scale employed by Tatar and Horecncyk

55 (2003). In Tatar and Yahav's (1999) study, this six-item scale yielded an alpha reliability value of 0.81, and in Tatar's (2001) investigation, the alpha value obtained was 0.84. In this dissertation, the coefficient alpha obtained was .87. (Please see items 1 through 6 of Section 6 of Attachment 1). Job tension was assessed using a seven-item scale by House and Rizzo (1972). The internal consistency reliability of this measure was .87. (Please see items 24 through 30 of Section 3 of Attachment 1). A five-point response format, with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as end-points, is used for both scales. Citizenship behavior-person. Four items, taken from the 8-item scale by Settoon and Mossholder (2002), were used to assess person-focused citizenship behavior. The four items with the highest factor on the person dimension loadings were used. A five-point response format with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as end-points is used. The coefficient alpha for this scale was .94. (Please see items 16 through 19 of Section 1 of Attachment 1). Citizenship behavior-organization. Four items, taken from the 6-item scale by Settoon and Mossholder (2002), were used to assess person-focused citizenship behavior. The four items with the highest factor on the task dimension loadings were used. A five-point response format, with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5), as end-points is used. The coefficient alpha reliability for this scale was .93. (Please see items 20 through 23 of Section 1 of Attachment 1). Counterproductive work behavior. Eight items, taken from the 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist by Fox et al. (2001), were used to assess employee involvement in activities dysfunctional to the organization. A five-point response format with never (1) and always (5) as endpoints is used. The internal consistency reliability for this scale was .84. (Please see items 1 through 8 of Section 5 of Attachment 1). Compliance. Compliance was assessed using five items, taken from the 20-item Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (Gudjonsson, 1989), which measures the tendency to conform to requests made by others, particularly authority. A five-point response format with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5) as endpoints is used. The coefficient alpha reliability for this scale was .50. (Please see items 8 through 12 of Section 4 of Attachment 1).

Organizational performance. Organizational performance was measured using the state assigned organizational grade given to schools. This school grade is based on student performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Although there are several factors that are included in the calculation of each individual school grade, all of the factors are related

56 to student performance on the state mandated standardize comprehensive achievement test. Some factors that influence school grade are the percentage of students who actually take the test, level of minority student test scores, percentage improvement in student test scores from the past year, and student scores on the norm referenced portion of the test. A five-point grading scale ranging from (A) Superior to (F) Failure and excluding the letter E is used.

Individual performance. Individual performance was assed using supervisor rated yearly evaluations. Ratings on two accomplished practice areas and an overall performance rating were used to assess individual performance. Teachers were rated on a three-point scale ranging from unsatisfactory to satisfactory. Principals were rated on a four-point scale ranging from unsatisfactory to outstanding. Non-instructional staff members were rated on a five-point scale. The points on this scale were poor, needs improvement, average, good, and very good. In order to accommodate for the fact that the performance measure for each of the professional groups (e.g., principals, teachers, and non-instructional staff) being examined used different rating scales, z-scores were used to standardize the measures. The z score transformation is especially useful when seeking to compare the relative standings of items from distributions with different means and/or different standard deviations. Because z scores express equivalent intervals on a distribution, each score is proportional in value to all the other z scores. Thus, the differences between z scores provide precise information about differences in evaluated performance. Information relating to both kinds of performance (individual and organization) comes from archival sources. Control variables. Individuals who are high in negative affectivity (NA) tend to view themselves and their immediate environment with disdain (Watson & Clark, 1984). Alternatively, individuals possessing high levels of positive affectivity (PA) often are pleasantly engaged with respect to their views of themselves, and the setting that they currently inhabit (George, 1992). Because both NA and PA have been found to impact the stress-strain relationship (Perrewé & Spector, 2002), this study gathered data on these constructs in order to use them as control variables in analyses of the data. Consequently, affective disposition was measured using the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), using a five-point response format ranging from very slightly or not at all (1) to extremely (5). (Please see the items 10 through 29 of Section 2 of Attachment 1).

57 Additionally, based on existing organizational cynicism research (Andersson, 1996), this study gathered data to control for age, gender, education, race, tenure, position, and organization/school effects in the last section of each survey (Schwab, 1999). Data Analysis Techniques Hypotheses 1-4 and 7-11b were tested by using hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, the demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, educational level, race, tenure, and position), organization, and affective disposition (i.e., negative and positive affect) were entered as controls. The predictor variables were entered in step 2. Hypotheses 5a-6d were tested by hierarchical moderated regression analyses. Specifically, moderated regression analyses are conducted to determine the influence of locus of control and spirituality on the relationships between cynicism and individual perceptions of the organization (i.e., perceptions of politics, justice perceptions, psychological contract violations, perceived organizational support). In the first step, the demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, educational level, race, tenure, and position), organization, and affective disposition (i.e., negative and positive affect) were entered as controls. The predictor variables were centered and entered in step 2, and the interaction term computed using centered predictor variables were 2 included in the final step. A t-test of the Β3 and F-test of the ∆R were used to test the interaction effect. Significance was indicated by a significant beta weight for the interaction term (Tate, 1998) or a significant increase in the variance explained (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, Tate, 1998) in the third step. In addition to hypotheses testing, mediated regression analyses were conducted to test the central assumption of the model presented, which is that organizational cynicism mediates the relationships between workplace perceptions and work outcomes. The procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used to test this assumption. The procedure involves estimating three separate equations. First, the mediator is regressed on the independent variable. Next, the dependent variable is regressed on the independent variable. Finally, the dependent variable is regressed on both the independent variable and the mediator. According to this procedure, the following conditions must be met in each equation respectively: a) the independent variable must affect the mediator, b) the independent variable must affect the dependent variable, c) the mediator must affect the dependent variable, and finally, when entered in to the equation, the mediator must decrease the effect of the independent

58 variable on the dependent variable. If the independent variable becomes non-significant, full mediation is present. However, if the beta coefficient of the independent variable decreases, but remains significant, there is support for partial mediation. Data Adequacy In order to test the tripartite structure and psychometric properties of cynicism, as suggested by Brandes et al. (1999), an exploratory factor analysis with oblique, oblimin rotation was conducted, using SPSS 11.0. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis tests were conducted to further examine and substantiate findings from the exploratory analysis. Because some of the measures used in this study are relatively new and not well established, confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.14a was used to address construct validity issues related to the predictor and moderator variables used in this model (i.e., perceptions of politics, justice, psychological contract violations, perceived organizational support, work locus of control, and spirituality). This method of analysis also was used to compare the fit of a single-factor model (common method) to various multiple-factor models of the independent variables under investigation in order to test their convergent and discriminate validity (Mcfarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In addition to the single factor model, a seven-factor model where items were loaded on each general predictor variable was tested. Additionally, because justice and organizational cynicism have been conceptualized as having three dimensions, an eleven-factor model in which appropriate items were loaded on each of three dimensions of justice and the three factors of cynicism was evaluated. An alternative ten-factor model analysis where belief and affective cynicism items were loaded on the same factor was also examined. Chi-square measures, and their associated degrees of freedom and probability levels, root mean square error of approximation (Hu & Bentler, 1998), goodness of fit index (Joreskog & Sorebom), normed fit index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and the comparative fit index (Bentler, 1990) were used to assess the goodness of fit of various factor models.

59 CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS The previous chapter outlined the data collection method, participants, measures, and statistical data analysis techniques used in the current study. This chapter presents the results of the analyses used to assess data adequacy and to test the hypotheses, and primary model assumptions of this dissertation. Post-hoc analyses are also presented. Analysis of Missing Subjects and Missing Data As mentioned above the data for this study are from 360 survey respondents representing 36% of the total number of surveys originally distributed to the population of interest. Although this response rate is believed to be average for this kind of survey research, non-responses introduce the possibility that those who responded are not representative of the population. However, external demographic information about the sample provides evidence that nonrepresentativeness is not a problem. For the subjects responding to the survey, there were some missing data for the variables of interest. List-wise deletion was used to compensate for this problem for all variables modeled in this study. However, because there was a significant number of missing data for age and tenure, mean substitution was used for these control variables. Exploratory Factor Analysis The results from the exploratory factor analysis of the 14-item cynicism scale yielded a two-factor solution, as noted in Table 1. Specifically, belief and affect items loaded on one factor, with loadings ranging from .52 to .86. Behavioral items loaded on a separated factor ranging from .62 to .83. Although there were no cross loadings of .4 or higher, the affect items loaded on the behavior factor at a level ranging from .28 to .37. Each eigenvalue met the 1.0 Kaiser-Guttman criterion, and the total variance explained by the items was 68.88%. This factor structure was contrary to the findings of Brandes et al. (1999), and the findings related to the American sample in the Lal, Srinivas, and Brandes study (2004). However, Lal et al. (2004) found a similar factor structure within the Indian population sample. A supplemental analysis was conducted in which the number of factors to be extracted was set to three. In this solution items loaded on the appropriate factors with no cross loadings. Belief factor loadings ranged from .73 to .89, affect factor loadings ranged from .65 to .80, and behavior factor loadings ranged from .70 to .84. Eigenvalues for the belief and behavioral factors

60 were above 1.0. The eigenvalue for the affect factor was .91 and did not meet the 1.0 criterion. The total variance explained by the items was 75.38%. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results Next, confirmatory factory analyses of the factor structure of organizational cynicism were conducted. The two-factor structure model yielded a significant Chi-square (Χ2 = 282.34, df = 59) and had a considerably good fit (RMSEA = .10, GFI = .90, NFI = .94, CFI = .95). The three-factor model showed a significant reduction in χ2 as compare to the two-factor model (χ2 = 75.34, df = 57). In addition to the reduction in χ2, the three factor model fit indices improved (RMSEA = .03, GFI = .97, NFI = .98, CFI = 1). (See Table 2) Initial model testing was followed by a chi-square difference test conducted to assess whether the two models were significantly different. As shown in Table 3, results from this test support the notion that the two models are different. Taken together, the fit indices and the χ2 difference test provided considerable support for the three-factor model of organizational cynicism. In order to assess and confirm the factor structure of each of the predictor variables, a separate confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for each measure. Items were loaded on latent variables as suggested by past theory. Theoretically, the scales used to measure perceptions of politics, psychological contract violations, perceived organizational support, and spirituality are univariate global measures. Organizational justice has been theorized as having three dimensions (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactive). Based on the theory that indicators of the same latent variable should be related, items within each factor were allowed to correlate as suggested by the modification indices. Table 4 shows the factor loadings and fit indices for each of the predictor variables. All the fit indices were good, and all factor loadings were significant. After examining the factor structure and psychometric properties of the organizational cynicism, predictor and moderator variables, convergent and discriminate validity was evaluated. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5. None of the fit indices for the single-factor model approached acceptable levels (RMSEA = .14, GFI = .48, NFI = .52, CFI = .57). The seven-factor model showed an improvement in fit, but was still unacceptable (RMSEA = .09, GFI = .65, NFI = .75, CFI = .81). Both the ten- and eleven-factor models provided an adequate fit for the data. Fit indices were (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .80, NFI = .86, CFI = .94) and (RMSEA = .04, GFI = .82, NFI = .87 CFI = .95), respectively. Based the small difference between the fit

61 of the ten and eleven factor models, a χ2 difference test was conducted, which indicated the two models were not the same, as noted in Table 6. Therefore, it is concluded that the eleven-factor model fits the data better than the three alternative models and that common method variance is not a problem in this study. Correlations The means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities are reported in Table 1. Organizational cynicism was significantly correlated with justice (r = -.41, p ≤ .01), perceptions of organizational politics (r = .55, p ≤ .01), psychological contract violations (r = .40, p ≤ .01), perceived organizational support (r = -.65, p ≤ .01), and work locus of control (r = -.22, p ≤ .01). Organizational cynicism was also significantly correlated with tenure (r = .20, p ≤ .01), negative affect (r = .35, p ≤ .01), positive affect (r = -.18, p ≤ .01), job tension (r = .30, p ≤ .01), and teacher burnout (r = .27, p ≤ .01). These relationships were largely consistent with theories about and empirical evidence on organizational cynicism. Tests of Hypotheses Hypotheses 1 - 4 were tested using a series of hierarchical regressions. Table 8 presents the results of these tests. In step 1, control variables (organization, tenure, age, race, gender, position, education, NA, and PA) were entered, followed by a group of workplace perceptions (perceptions of organizational politics, perceptions of justice, psychological contract violations, and perceive organizational support) at the second level. These hypotheses tested the impact of individual workplace perceptions on organizational cynicism. When entered in the second step, the four workplace perception measures explained a highly significant 52% of the variance in organizational cynicism (∆R2 = .52, ∆F = 36.80, p ≤ .001). As can be seen in Table 8, perceived organizational support emerged as the strongest predictor of organizational cynicism (β= -.55, p ≤ .001). In contrast, perceptions of justice was marginally related to organizational cynicism (β = -.08, p ≤ .10). Perceptions of organizational politics (β = .20, p ≤ .001) and psychological contract violations (β = .13, p ≤ .05) also were significantly related to organizational cynicism. Hypotheses 1- 4 were supported for all predictors in the hypothesized direction. To test Hypotheses 5a - 5d and 6a - 6d, moderated hierarchical regression analysis was used. All control variables were entered in step 1. In step 2, the workplace perceptions, and the

62 moderator variables were entered. Finally, the interaction terms for each workplace perception and the moderator variable were entered in step 3. Hypotheses 5a - 5d tested whether individuals were differentially influenced by workplace perceptions because of their work locus of control orientation. Only one moderated relationship was found. Table 9 gives these results. A marginally significant interaction term between perceived organizational support and work locus of control was detected (β = -.17, p ≤ .10). The change in variance explained was not significant. Slope difference tests were conducted to asses whether the slope of the moderated lines differed significantly from zero. Analyses results indicated that the slopes of the line when the moderator was high (β = -.76, p ≤ .001) and when the moderator was low (β = -.73, p ≤ .001) were significantly different from zero. As shown in Figure 2, there was a more negative relationship between perceived organizational support and organization cynicism for those with internal locus of control than for those with external locus control. Similarly, Hypotheses 6a - 6d tested the moderating effects of workplace spirituality on the relationships between workplace perceptions and organizational cynicism. None of the hypothesized moderated relationships were statistically significant. See Table 10. Hypothesis 7 evaluated the nonlinear effects of organizational cynicism on workplace strain using hierarchical moderated regression. Specifically, the impact of organizational cynicism on job tension (See Table 11) and teacher burnout (See Table 12) were assessed. The control variables were entered in step 1, organizational cynicism in step 2, and organizational cynicism squared in step 3. The squared term was not significant in explaining either form of job strain. Accordingly, Hypothesis 7 was rejected. However, step 2 of the tests indicates that there is a positive linear relationship between organizational cynicism and both job tension and teacher burnout. Hypotheses 8a - 11b were tested using hierarchical regression analyses similar to that performed for hypotheses 1-4. Hypotheses 8a and 8b tested the effects of organizational cynicism on two forms of citizenship behaviors (personal citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior). As shown in Table 13, the values yielded in step two indicated that organizational cynicism was significantly and negatively related to personal citizenship behavior (β = -.09, p ≤ .05), but is not significantly related to organizational citizenship. Hypothesis 8a was supported contrary to the hypothesized direction, whereas Hypothesis 8b was not supported.

63 Hypotheses 9 and 10 examined the effects of organizational cynicism on workplace deviance. Organizational cynicism predicted both compliance (β= .09, p ≤ .01) and counterproductive behavior (β= .08, p ≤ .05). These results provide support for both Hypotheses 9 and 10, which are noted in Table 13. Hypothesis 11a and 11b assessed the impact of organizational cynicism on performance. The relationships between organizational cynicism and individual performance and organizational cynicism and organizational performance (school grade) were investigated. The analyses results included in Table 13 reveal that as expected, organizational cynicism is not significantly associated with individual performance. However, contrary to expectations, it was not significantly associated with organizational performance. Hypothesis 11a was supported but Hypothesis 11b was not. See Table 14 for a summary of Hypotheses analyses results. Test of Model Assumption The primary assumption of the model presented is that organizational cynicism mediates the relationship between individual workplace perceptions and various organizational outcomes. To test this model, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for each dependent variable. As described by Baron and Kenny (1986), the mediator was regressed on independent variables in the first model. In the second model, the dependent variable was regressed on the independent variables and in the third model the dependent variable was regressed on the mediator and the independent variables. Each of the four workplace predictors significantly affected the mediator. Thus, the requirements for model 1 were met. When organizational cynicism was examined as a mediator between workplace perceptions and job tension, only justice (β = -.15, p ≤ .05) and psychological contract violations (β = .21, p ≤ .01) met the requirements in model 2. As shown in Table 15, when added in model 3 the effect of organizational cynicism was significant (β= .23, p ≤ .01). The coefficients of justice (β = -.13, p ≤ .05) and psychological contract violation (β = .18, p ≤ .01) decreased, but remained significant. Therefore, support was found for partial mediation. The second series of regression analyses tested organizational cynicism as mediator between workplace perceptions and teacher burnout. Table 16 shows that in the second model only perceived organizational support significantly affected teacher burnout (β = -.29, p ≤ .01). In the final step, the coefficient for teacher burnout decreased (β = -.22, p ≤ .05) and

64 organizational cynicism was marginally significant (β = .12, p ≤ .10). These results suggest partial mediation effects. Next, the test of mediation between workplace perceptions and both forms of citizenship behaviors yielded results that failed to support the mediating role of organizational cynicism. Tables 17 and18 present these results. In the second and third models, perceptions of organizational politics and psychological contract violations significantly affected personal and organizational focused citizenship behavior, but the effects of organizational cynicism were non- significant in model 3. Similarly, results for organizational cynicism mediating the relationship between workplace perceptions and workplace deviance indicated that organizational cynicism does not mediate the relationship between workplace perception and compliance or counterproductive work behavior. See Tables 19 and 20. Finally, the assumption that organizational cynicism mediates the relationship between workplace perceptions and performance was tested. See Tables 21 and 22. None of the individual workplace perceptions significantly affected individual performance in the second step. Thus, the second requirement described by Baron and Kenny (1986) was not fulfilled. However, in the second model examining the influence of workplace perception on organizational performance, the effects of perceptions of organizational politics (β = -.33, p ≤ .01) and perceived organizational performance (β = -.42, p ≤ .05) were significant. In model three, the coefficient for organizational cynicism was significant (β = .43, p ≤ .05). The increased and still statistically significant coefficient for perceptions of organizational politics (β = -.45, p ≤ .01) indicated that organizational cynicism did not mediate the impact of perceptions of organizational politics on organizational performance. However, in model 3, the non-significant coefficient for perceived organizational support indicated that organizational cynicism completely mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational performance. In summary, hierarchical regression analyses for mediation results indicated the organizational cynicism partially mediated the relationships between perceptions of organizational politics and job tension, perceived organizational support and job tension, and perceived organizational support and teacher burnout. Additionally, support was found for the notion that organizational cynicism fully mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational performance.

65 Post-Hoc Analyses To further understand the findings of the hypothesis tests for moderation and gain additional insight, a series of post-hoc analyses were conducted. An examination of the frequency distribution of the respondents' scores on the spirituality scale revealed that a large number of the scores are clustered towards the high end of the scale continuum. Specifically, 320 of the 351 respondents received a rating of 4 or higher on the five-point scale and 200 of those respondents received a rating of five. The lack of variability of this scale is believed to have had a significant effect on the results of the moderated hierarchical regression analyses. In an attempt to achieve more variability, the hierarchical moderated regression analysis was re-run using only the portion of the sample that scored less than five on the spirituality measure. Still no support was found for moderation. Because it is believed that these hypotheses were based on sound theory, further steps were taken to explore the impact that workplace spirituality might have on cynicism relationships. Specifically, analyses were conducted to examine whether workplace spirituality moderated the relationship between individual workplace perceptions and each separate dimension of organizational cynicism. This was believed to represent acceptable analyses because in the past researchers have examined each dimension separately and found different effects (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). In this study, the interaction effect for workplace spirituality and organizational justice was significant (β = .17, p ≤ .05, ∆R2 = .03, p ≤ .01) when testing the relationship between justice and behavioral cynicism, partially supporting Hypothesis 6d. Slope difference tests indicated that the slope of the lines when the moderator was high (β = -.24, p ≤ .001) and when the moderator was low (β = -.38, p ≤ .001) were significantly different from zero. No other interaction terms were significant in any of the other analyses. The Figure 3 shows the plot of the significant interaction (Aiken & West, 1991). As seen in Figure 3, justice was negatively related to organizational cynicism for those with low workplace spirituality, and was positively related to organizational cynicism for those with high workplace spirituality. A summary of these results can be found in Table 23. Based on this finding, additional analyses were conducted to assess the effects of work locus of control on the relationships between individual perceptions and the dimensions of

66 organizational cynicism. These analyses produced similar results. As shown in Table 24, the interaction effect for work locus of control and organizational justice was significant (β = .21, p ≤ .01) when testing the relationship between justice and behavioral cynicism. An additional 2% of the variance was explained in the third step (∆R2 = .02, p ≤ .10). Slope difference analyses results indicated that the slope of the lines when the moderator was high (β = -.21, p ≤ .05) and when the moderator was low (β = -.31, p ≤ .001) were significantly different from zero. Figure 4 shows the plot of the significant interaction (Aiken & West, 1991). As seen in Figure 4, justice was negatively related to organizational cynicism for those with external locus of control and was positively related to organizational cynicism for those with an internal locus of control. Additionally, the interaction terms in Table 25 for work locus of control and psychological contract violation (β = -.15, p ≤ .10) and for work locus of control and perceived organizational support (β = -.25, p ≤ .05) were significant when testing the relationship between psychological contract violation and cynical beliefs and perceived organizational support and cynical beliefs. The additional variance explained in the third step was not significant. Figure 5 illustrates this interaction between work locus of control and psychological contract violation. Psychological contact violation was more positively related to cynical beliefs for those with external locus of control and than for those with an internal locus of control. Slope difference tests were significant. Analyses results revealed that the slope of the lines when the moderator was high (β = .46, p ≤ .001) and when the moderator was low (β = .54, p ≤ .001) were significantly different from zero. The interaction between work locus of control and perceived organizational support is illustrated in Figure 6. There was a more negative relationship between perceived organizational support and cynical beliefs for those with internal locus of control than for those with external locus of control. Slope analyses results revealed that the slope of the lines when the moderator was high (β = -.91, p ≤ .001) and when the moderator was low (β = -.83, p ≤ .001) also were significantly different form zero. Again, the interaction term for work locus of control and perceived organizational support was significant (β = -.25, p ≤ .10) when testing the relationship between perceived organizational support and cynical affect. The change in variance explained was not significant. See Table 26. Once more, slope difference tests were conducted to asses whether the slope of

67 the moderated lines differed significantly from zero. Analyses results indicated that the slope of the lines when the moderator was high (β = -.93, p ≤ .001) and when the moderator was low (β = -.85, p ≤ .001) were significantly different from zero. Figure 7 illustrates this interaction. As expected, the relationship between perceived organizational support and cynical beliefs was more negative for those with internal locus of control than for those with external locus of control. One other post-hoc analysis was conducted on the hypothesized relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational performance. This analysis was done to address the notion that no relationship was found between the aforementioned constructs because an individual-level variable (organizational cynicism) was being tested as a predictor of a group- level outcome (organizational performance). In an attempt to deal with this potential problem, a measure of organizational climate was created by aggregating the individual organizational cynicism scores for each organization (school) within the district. In essence, cynical climate for each school was equated to the average organizational cynicism score for that school. Hierarchical regression analysis similar to the original one used to test this hypothesis was conducted. Organizational performance was regressed on the new measure of cynical climate. Organizational cynicism climate did not demonstrate a significant effect on organizational performance. Summary This chapter reported the analyses of the relationships hypothesized in Figure 1. The results of these analyses were partially supportive of the research model. Specifically, the results of this study suggest that organizational cynicism is affected by individual workplace perceptions. Findings also support the notions that cynicism towards the organization influences a number of organizational outcomes. Furthermore, the primary model assumption that organizational cynicism mediated the relationship between workplace perceptions and work related outcomes was partially supported. Post-hoc analyses suggesting that work locus of control and workplace spirituality interact with workplace perceptions to affect dimensions of organizational cynicism received substantial support and indicate that the various dimensions of cynicism might have distinct antecedents and be influenced differently by factors in the organization.

68 The following chapter integrates these results with the existing literature on organizational cynicism and organizational behavior. In addition, the strengths, limitations, practical implications, and directions for future research inherent in this dissertation are presented.

69 CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION In this study, a model of antecedents and consequences of organizational cynicism was presented in order to investigate several specific hypotheses while generating new insight into the mechanisms and processes related to organizational cynicism. The present study suggests that elements of the work environment may have a direct effect on employees’ cynical attitudes towards the organization and that these attitudes affect a wide variety of work outcomes. Prior research, which generally has focused on the consequences of psychological contract violations (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), largely has ignored the role of other workplace perceptions, and given little attention to possible positive cynicism outcomes. The model developed here more fully addressed these issues by examining the roles of numerous workplace perceptions, moderators, and the potential for positive, negative, and neutral outcomes. Contributions of the Study Specifically, this study extends past research in several ways. First, and foremost, this research identifies four workplace perceptions as predictors of organizational cynicism, validating the proposition from organizational cynicism theory that situational factors are important determinants of specific forms of cynicism. Second, extending cynicism theory, this study indicates that organizational cynicism is affected by the absence of positive elements at work, as well as by the presence of negative environmental factors. It also suggests that organizational cynicism effects are not universally negative. Third, replicating past research, this study supported the notion that organizational cynicism serves as a mediator between workplace perception and specific kinds of work related outcomes. As expected, Hypotheses 1- 4 were supported. In these hypotheses, injustice, perceptions of organizational politics, psychological contract violations, and the lack of organizational support are recognized as important work factors that attribute to cynicism in organizations. Results indicated that factors in the work environment that affect aspects of social exchange relationships are related to organizational cynicism. That is, employees’ cynicism was affected by their own perceptions of fairness, betrayal, and support in the workplace. These findings highlight the nature of organization – employee relationships, and the importance of expectations associated with social exchanges between employees and their employer. It is further implied

70 that the organization may be able to decrease cynicism through the development of high-quality social exchange relationships. Furthermore, because all analyses were conducted while controlling for negative and positive affectivity and demographic variables that are believed to impact organizational cynicism, the effects shown are above and beyond the personal characteristics of individual employees. Thus, although personality and demographics are indeed related to organizational cynicism, the nature of the organizational environment and role of work characteristics should not be dismissed. A particularly important finding was the strong relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational cynicism. According to this study, perceived support from their organization is negatively associated with the development of cynical employee attitudes. These findings are consistent with prior works showing a relationship between employee social exchange relationships, and their behaviors and attitudes (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Hochwarter et al., 2003; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Settoon et al., 1996). Indeed, the link between negative social exchange relationships and negative employee attitudes may be explained, in part, by an association of poor employer-employee exchange relationships with a lack of perceived organizational support that likely contributes to organizational cynicism. This study also revealed that individual characteristics have a significant influence on the workplace perceptions-organizational cynicism relationships. Work locus of control moderated the relationships between justice and behavioral cynicism and between psychological contract violations and cynical beliefs. In both cases, those with internal locus of control were less cynical than externals when negativeness was perceived in the workplace. On the other hand, externals were less cynical than internals under pleasant conditions. Support was found for the interaction involving perceived organizational support and work locus of control. Work locus of control significantly moderated the relationship between perceived organizational support and the general concept of organizational cynicism, as well as the relationships between support and the individual dimensions of cynical beliefs and affect. All three of the interactions indicate that internals respond more positively to organizational support than do externals. This suggests that those with internal locus of control are better able to take advantage of resources that are provided to them by the organization.

71 Though the evidence supporting the moderating effects of spirituality is not as strong, workplace spirituality significantly moderated the relationship between justice and cynical behavior. The illustration of this interaction suggests that workplace spirituality might serve as a buffer against work-related injustice. Moreover, in this analysis, high workplace spirituality reversed the relationship between justice and organizational cynicism. These findings indicate that spirituality should be recognized as an active force in the workplace that might explain unusual relationships and outcomes. However, considering the invariability of the spirituality scale, findings of this study should be interpreted with caution. Researchers are urged to take a closer look at workplace spirituality in order to determine its true impact on work relationships. The use of multiple measures to evaluate workplace spirituality is necessary to further determine its construct, convergent, and discriminate validity. Interestingly, the examination of organizational cynicism outcomes revealed that cynicism might not always promote unfavorable attitudes and behaviors. Past studies have focused mostly on detrimental consequences of cynicism. However, the results of the present study show that cynicism is positively related to employee compliance. This suggests that cynical employees are not likely to challenge decisions and directions handed down by management. Additionally, as hypothesized, this analysis shows that organizational cynicism does not significantly affect job performance. In essence, those who are cynical still fulfill job performance requirements to satisfactory levels. Thus, one might interpret or extend these findings to imply that organizational cynicism neutralizes the work environment by contributing to employees doing their jobs without divergence. Unexpected Findings Although the results for organizational cynicism’s effect on job strain contradict the hypothesized relationships, they are consistent with some of the cynicism theory literature (Abraham, 2000). In keeping with Abraham’s theory, the current study found a positive relationship between organizational cynicism and job strain, whereby cynicism was positively and linearly related to burnout and job tension. As suggested by Smith et al. (1988), support was found for the notion that cynics find their job to be stressful and emotionally taxing. Results related to the linkages between organizational cynicism and personal and organizational-focused citizenship behaviors were also somewhat unexpected. Although

72 organizational cynicism only had a significant influence on personal focused citizenship, relationships between cynicism towards the organization and both kinds of citizenship behaviors were negative. It is possible that individuals were not able to distinguish between helping coworkers and helping the organization. Also, feelings of powerlessness and withdrawal might have inhibited cynics from helping others (Abraham, 2000). Tests of the model assumptions of mediation supported the theory that organizational cynicism mediates the relationship between workplace perceptions and some organizational outcomes. However, results related to the perceived organizational support – organizational cynicism – organizational performance relationship are particularly peculiar. In the second step of the mediation analysis, perceived organizational support was negatively related to organizational performance, and in the third step, organizational cynicism was positively related to organizational performance. The direction of both the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational performance and the relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational performance contrast with theoretical expectations. There are two potential explanations for these linkages. First, as mentioned in the ad hoc analysis, using individual constructs as predictors of group-level outcomes can be problematic. Second, the measure of organizational performance for schools is quite different from the ones used by most other organizations. Schools are assigned a grade based solely on student performance on the statewide assessment test. Schools that perform poorly receive additional resources to help raise student test scores. Because causality cannot be determined by this study, the negative relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational performance may reflect the relationship between poor school performance and increased support. States also have systems in place to hold employees accountable for student performance on state tests and school grades. Therefore, individuals may strive to achieve high scores and a good school grade from the state even if they are cynical towards the organization for which they work. An alternative theoretical explanation is offered based on Cutler (2003). This theory conceptualizes cynicism as a general attitude or ideology that can actually be a positive force in the workplace. Cynics’ willingness to criticize decisions and behavior in organizations may lead to refined methods of doing things and contribute to higher performance.

73 Also, in contrast to expectations, work locus of control did not serve as a moderator of the relationships between three of the workplace perceptions (perceptions of politics, organizational justice and psychological contract violations) and organizational cynicism. The moderator hypotheses are based on the theory that locus of control affects individuals’ faith in their ability to transform their environment (Klein & Wasserstein-Warnet, 2000). Also, the theory presented here is in keeping with the findings of past research related to the moderating effects of locus of control (Roberts et al., 1997). Unlike the present study that focused on work locus of control, both of the aforementioned past studies used the general measure of locus of control developed by Rotter (1966). The work locus of control measure used in this research places emphasis on individuals’ confidence in their ability to influence their job and job-related outcomes. This specificity may have contributed to the non-significant moderating effects in this study. Perhaps, work locus of control would be a better moderator of relationships between situational variables and job cynicism. Additional studies are needed to assess whether general locus of control is a more powerful moderator of the suggested relationships than work locus of control. Finally, workplace spirituality did not moderate any of the relationships between the four workplace perceptions and organizational cynicism. Although these findings were unanticipated, they were not surprising, considering the invariability of the spirituality scale. As mentioned earlier, most of the respondents scored over four on the spirituality measure. It is believed that these high scores are a reflection of the cultural values of the sample population. Qualitative research revealed that the schools used in this study are located in a conservative and highly religious area. Even though the spirituality scale (Conner et al., 2003) used did not directly measure religious beliefs and practices, a number of the items referred to a belief in a prayer and a higher power. Perhaps, using a more abstract measure of spirituality would have let participants to make more personal interpretations of their own individual spiritual connections and allowed a more realistic view of the impact that spirituality has on work relationships. Strengths of the Current Research There are several notable strengths of this study. First, and most importantly, a comprehensive model of cynicism in organizations is presented and tested. At least one broad theoretical model for studying cynicism has been presented (Andersson, 1996) in the past, but never tested. In contrast, there have been a number of empirical studies that focused on specific

74 aspects of organizational cynicism. The contributions of these studies are not to be discounted. However, they left a need for a more integrated test of organizational cynicism processes. This study synthesized multiple aspects of cynicism in organizations, and provided empirical evidence to support past relationships as well as introduce new linkages and effects. Additionally, this dissertation answered the call by many past researchers for a more in- depth examination of cynicism outcomes. Specifically, organizational cynicism is approached as a negative attitude that has the potential to impact the organization and employee in diverse ways. By taking a more objective view of cynicism, new information can be generated that might enable organizations to capitalize on what was once thought to be an intolerable employee attribute. Another noteworthy contribution of this research is that it links organizational cynicism to other fields of study and embeds it in a theoretical framework that is universal to all organizations. It is suggested that the internal dynamics of life within the organization have a substantial effect on organizational cynicism. Empirical findings affirmed the importance of organizational obligations and participation in the social exchange process in shaping employee attitudes towards work. There are also analysis techniques that added to the believability of test results from this dissertation. Multiple source data was used in the empirical analyses in order to reduce the likelihood of respondent bias and common method variance. Additionally, a number of control variables were included in the data analysis to rule out as many alternative explanations as possible. By controlling for demographics, organization (school) effects, and entering all predictor variables simultaneously in the same regression analysis, the most conservative test of hypothesized relationships was employed. Limitations of the Current Research The present study has some limitations. In order to accurately access the contributions of this research, it is necessary to acknowledge and discuss their effect on generalizability and interpretation. The current study is limited by the variability of the spirituality scale, the uniqueness of the organizational performance measure, organizational context, and common method variance. One general concern associated with using self-report measures to assess variables that are closely tied to community or societal values is that employees’ report of such variables can

75 be biased in the direction preferred by the value system. In this study, employees may have over reported their spirituality under the influence of social desirability, resulting in a restriction of the range of this variable. Lack of variance likely attenuated the effect of spirituality on the relationships between workplace perceptions and organizational cynicism. The extremely high scores on this measure, and the fact that spirituality did not significantly moderate the relationships between workplace perceptions and the general measure of organizational cynicism and only significantly affected the relationship between organizational justice and the behavioral dimension of cynicism, increase the concern that the true effects of spirituality were not captured. Another limitation of the current study concerns potential generalizability. Although restricting this research sample to a single school district ruled out superfluous factors associated with multiple kinds of organizational systems and expanded cynicism research into an area unexplored by previous research, the generalizability of the results to other organizations might be limited. However, the results were largely consistent with prior theoretical and empirical work, suggesting that they are not sample specific. Nonetheless, future replications and extensions of this investigation are warranted. The uniqueness of the measure of organizational performance used by schools also limits the findings of this study. In essence, these schools were evaluated based on only one aspect of performance, comprehensive test scores. Although this is an importance outcome for educational organizations and a study such as this likely provides valuable insight regarding unexplored dynamics within a school system, the findings have little transfer value to other kinds of organizations. An additional criticism of this study relates to self-report methodology for measuring many of the variables, and the detecting common method bias (Crampton & Wagner, 1994). To reduce common method variance, the dependent individual and organizational performance variables were collected from archival data. Also, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted, and the one-factor model (i.e., which would provide some evidence in support of method variance problems) fit the data poorly. Furthermore, if common method variance was high, the pattern of relationships observed, which included the absence of one common underlying factor, would be unlikely.

76 Practical Implications The current study has significant practical implications. For example, it provides evidence that individuals’ cynical attitudes towards the organization are formed by features particular to that organization. This gives managers the ability to indirectly manage employee cynicism. They can proactively address cynicism in organizations from at least four different angles. First, steps can be taken to reduce perceptions of organizational politics. Implementing and adhering to formal guidelines, providing clear frequent feedback, and creating opportunities for more supervisor – employee interaction are a few simple measures that have been linked to reduced politics perceptions (Valle & Perrewè, 2000), and could be used to influence employee attitudes. Organizational cynicism can be further diminished by making conscious efforts to treat employees fairly. There is ample evidence that employees' perceptions of justice have an impact on their evaluations of the organization. Unfair treatment has been shown to induce strong cynical feelings (Skarlicki et al., 1999). Openly discussing organizational procedures and distributing rewards and reprimands in a deferential manner is likely to have a favorable impact on employee cynicism and related job strain. Managers also should be aware of employee expectations regarding mutual contractual obligations. It is necessary for managers to understand that employees’ perceptions of these obligations are not always the same as organizations’. Dissonance between the two can be reduced through realistic job descriptions and interviews during the selection process. Managers can diminish disillusionment and unrealistic expectations by clearly communicating what is required of employees and what will be provided in return. Another point of interest relates to the value of organizational support. According to this study, perceived organizational support is a very important predictor of organizational cynicism. The challenge for managers is to develop organizational cultures that value employees and their contributions. Simple recognition techniques that acknowledge and show appreciation for employee efforts are likely have a positive effect on employee morale and induce positive feelings towards the organization. Treating workers with dignity and respect are ways to combat cynicism at little cost to the organization.

77 Additionally, because this study suggests that organizational cynics are more compliant, yet engage in more counterproductive behavior, managers should consider implementing directives that are designed to reduce or control behaviors that are destructive to the organization’s purpose. Directions for Future Research As the previous literature review suggested, there has been considerable progress in the cynicism literature since Cook and Medley (1954). However, a number of areas have yet to be addressed, and there are several important avenues left to be explored by researchers. Much work remains to be done in order to facilitate the understanding and management of organizational cynicism. Moreover, it is suggested that empirical research on cynicism in organizations has been relatively limited in scope, and offers few consistent findings, and in many aspects, the functions of organizational cynicism have not been examined. This dissertation begins to address many of the aforementioned issues, however, tremendous opportunities for future research still exist. In this section, key directions for future research are discussed. Dimensions of Organizational Cynicism An important direction for the future of organizational cynicism research is to address the dimensionality of the construct. It is suggested by Dean et al. (1998) that cynicism is composed of cynical affect, beliefs and behaviors. This study, and only one other (i.e., Lal et al., 2004), have explicitly examined these dimensions. In both cases, there is some evidence to support both dual and tripartite dimensionality. More in-depth research is needed to examine and confirm the structure of organizational cynicism. A related issue is whether individuals who are cynical towards their organization necessarily embrace cynical affect, beliefs, and behaviors. Some studies have operationalized organizational cynicism based on individual components (Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003), whereas others have used measures that did not explicitly examine any of them (Wilkinson et al., 2003) Additionally, a review of known empirical studies demonstrated that the least examined component tends to be cynical behavior. As suggested by the ad hoc findings in this study, cynical affect, beliefs, and behaviors might be influenced by different things, and reflect differential influence on organizational outcomes. Probing the characteristics and developmental processes related to each component is likely to facilitate a deeper understanding of the role that cynicism plays in the workplace.

78 The Role of Organizational Cynicism Over the past decade, there have been a number of investigations on the role that cynicism plays in organizations. Early studies focused on cynicism as a mechanism that diminished trust and caused individuals to develop a generalized dislike and suspicion toward executives and big business (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). Subsequent studies emphasized the effects of employee cynicism on the employing organization. Organizational cynicism has been identified as an impediment to organizational development (Wanous et al., 2000), and a major cause of negative employee outcomes (Abraham 2000; Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Most of these studies have conceptualized cynicism as an attitude. However, there has been very little consideration of the various functions that this attitude might serve for the individual. For instance, Katz (1960) noted that attitudes serve four main functions (i.e., adjustment function, ego-defensive function, value-expressive function, and knowledge- function). Cynicism may serve as valuable coping mechanism that helps employees adapt to their work environment. In some cases, cynicism may help employee adjustment to the environment, and serve as an influence on future behavior. The relationship found between perceived organizational support and cynicism can be used to illustrate this function. The results of this study support the theory that when employees are treated well, they are likely to develop positives attitude toward the organization, and when they are berated and mistreated, they are likely to develop negative attitudes toward the same. This study also provides evidence of the knowledge function of cynicism. When serving in this function, attitudes may not necessarily be based on facts, but on individual perceptions, instead. Nonetheless, they may supply standards and frames of reference that allow individuals to organize and explain the work environment. These analyses suggest that organizational cynicism may be used to make sense out of what individuals perceive to be going on in the workplace. Although this study offers some valuable support for the notion that cynicism is important to individual adaptive processes, it does not address ego-defensive or value-expressive properties of organizational cynicism. The latter two functions may help individuals maintain a sense of self in the workplace. Surprisingly, the literature on cynicism in organizations does not include research on the psychological benefits of organizational cynicism. Thus, it is concluded that important attitudinal functions of cynicism merit more research attention.

79 Alternatively, some suggest that organizational cynicism is more of an ideology, or perspective, than an attitude (Cutler, 2000). If such is the case, does this perspective evolve from prolonged cynical attitudes, or is it a related, but separate construct? Answers to questions such as these require longitudinal and qualitative studies that allow researchers to track employee attitudes and reactions, as well as observe them interacting within the organization. There is also a need for more consideration of the links between organizational cynicism and other factors in the workplace. Specifically, the model and analyses presented in this dissertation support the theory that workplace perceptions are antecedents of organizational cynicism. However, these relationships merit further investigation. Perception theory suggests that in addition to experiences, individuals’ perceptions are influenced by their beliefs and feelings about things and events that they are familiar with, and that are related to the target that they are evaluating. This suggests that there might be a recursive connection with work-related experiences influencing negative workplace perceptions, which in turn arouses cynicism, which further deteriorates employees' perceptions of their employing organization, resulting in a cyclical relationship. Alternative Models The conceptualization presented and tested in this dissertation is important because it presents a comprehensive theory-driven model of cynicism in organizations. It is a critical first step toward understanding the process of organizational cynicism. It is intended to be used as an initial framework for understanding the general nature of employee cynicism, and as a foundation for expanding future research. Suggested expansions are discussed below. The antecedents presented represent one of many categories of environmental factors. Other categories that should be considered include, but are not limited to, organizational factors, job characteristics, and individual differences. Although organizational cynicism is conceptualized as an individual-level attitude, past theorists have recognized that organizational factors and job characteristics have the potential to influence the development of this negative attitude (Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Kanter & Mirvis, 1989;). Andersson (1996) identified organizational communication practices, interpersonal treatment, managerial competence, and management techniques as important organizational factors that predict employee cynicism. Likewise, role ambiguity, role conflict and work overload were job related variables identified as antecedents to employee cynicism. Although

80 Andersson’s (1996) initial framework did not identify personality and dispositional variables as antecedents, it is expected that certain personal characteristics such as Machavellianism, positive and negative affectivity, and personality cynicism might directly and significantly influence organizational cynicism. A testable model that includes variables from each of the aforementioned categories of antecedents will allow researchers to better examine the complexities of employee cynicism. Additionally, in this study, work locus of control and workplace spirituality were tested as moderators of the relationships between workplace perceptions and organizational cynicism. However, moderated relationships between organizational cynicism and the various outcomes were not considered. Addressing this void might help to explain findings that are inconsistent across studies. In particular, possible moderating effects on the relationship between organizational citizenship and organizational cynicism should be examined. Replication and Extension Finally, because of the uniqueness of the sample used, it is strongly suggested that this study be replicated in a different context in order to further confirm suggested relationships. Because many of the measures employed in this study are not well established, it is also recommended that this model be tested using alternative measures of the focal constructs. Another promising extension of this study would be to more systematically examine the behaviors of organizational cynics in an effort to understand detrimental and beneficial aspects of cynicism, and to further assess whether cynical employees are more of an asset or liability to organizations. In terms of the methods used in this research, future research should explore additional means of capturing organizational cynicism, perhaps through broad scale interviews, observation, and co-worker surveys. Conclusion Drawing on past organizational cynicism research and social exchange theory, a model was developed that explained substantial linkages in the organizational cynicism process. Thus, this dissertation helps to close the gap between what scholars know about organizational cynicism and what they need to know. More broadly, the findings for this study show the value of work environmental factors and personal characteristics in determining organizational cynicism and suggest that there might be both a negative and a positive side of cynicism. The negative side has received most of the research attention. However, it is believed that much can

81 be gleaned from exploring the more positive aspects of this negative attitude. Because it cannot be fully eliminated from the workplace, perhaps managers and administrators could capitalize on the presence of cynicism in organizations.

Workplace Strain • Job Tension • Teacher Burnout Personality

• Work Locus of Control Citizenship Behavior • CB-Organization • CB-Person

Workplace Perceptions • Perceptions of Politics Workplace Deviance • Organizational of Justice Organizational • Counterproductive Work • Psychological Contract behavior • Non-Compliance Violations Cynicism • Perceived Organizational Support

Performance • Individual Performance

• Org. Performance

Spirituality Figure 1. Model of Organizational Cynicism

83 Low 2.24 Work Locus of 2.14 Control Avg Work 2.04 Locus of Control 1.94 High 1.84 Work Locus of 1.74 Control

Organizational Cynicism . Organizational 1.64

1.54

1.44 Low High Perceived Organizational Support

Figure 2. The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Cynicism

84 2.10 Low Workplace 2.05 Spirituality Avg 2.00 Workplace Spirituality

1.95 High Workplace 1.90 Spirituality Cynical Behavior . Behavior Cynical

1.85

1.80 Low High Organizational Justice

Figure 3. The Moderating Effect of Workplace Spirituality on the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Cynical Behavior

85 Low Work Locus of 2.10 Control

2.05 Avg Work Locus of 2.00 Control High Work 1.95 Locus of Control Cynical Behavior . Behavior Cynical 1.90

1.85

1.80 Low High Organizational Justice

Figure 4. The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Cynical Behavior

86 Low Work 2.10 Locus of Control

2.00 Avg Work Locus of Control 1.90 High Work Locus of 1.80 Control Cynicial Belief

1.70

1.60 Low High Psychological Contract Violation

Figure 5. The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Psychological Contract Violation and Cynical Belief

87 Low Work 2.40 Locus of Control

2.20 Avg Work Locus of Control 2.00 High Work Locus of 1.80 Control Cynicial Belief

1.60

1.40 Low High Perceived Organizational Support

Figure 6. The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Cynical Belief

88 Low Work 2.05 Locus of Control

1.85 Avg Work Locus of Control 1.65 High Work Locus of 1.45 Cynical Affect . Affect Cynical Control

1.25

1.05 Low High Perceived Organizational Support

Figure 7. The Moderating Effect of Work Locus of Control on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support and Cynical Affect

89 Table 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis, Organizational Cynicism Two Factor Model Three Factor Model Item Belief/Affect Behavioral Belief Affect Behavioral I believe my school district says one thing and does another. .86 .81 My school district’s policies, goals, and practices seem to have little in .90 .89 common. When my school district says it’s going to do something, I wonder if it .90 .84 will really happen. My school district expects one thing of its employees, but rewards .83 .73 another. I see little similarity between what my school district says it will do and .90 .83 what it actually does. I often experience irritation when I think about my school district. .67 .65 I often experience aggravation when I think about my school district. .64 .66 I often experience tension when I think about my school district. .63 .80 I often experience anxiety when I think about my school district. .52 .79 I complain about how things happen in my school district to friends .83 .79 outside the organization. I exchange “knowing” glances with my coworkers. .80 .70 I often talk to others about the ways things are run in my school district. .86 .81 I criticize my school district’s practices and policies with others. .82 .84 I find myself mocking my school district’s slogans and initiatives. .62 .74

90 Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Comparison, Organizational Cynicism Scale Two Factor Solution Three Factor Solution Chi-square 282.34, 59 p = .000 75.34,57 p =.052 RMSEA .10 .03 GFI .90 .97 NFI .94 .98 CFI .95 1.00

91 Table 3 Model Comparisons, Organizational Cynicism Scale Model Dimensions 2 2 X df X diff dfdiff CFI RMSEA Two Factor Solution 282.34 59 .95 .10 Three Factor Solution 75.34 57 207** 2 1.00 .03 ** p ≤ .01

92 Table 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Independent Variables Latent Variable Observed Factor Variable Loading Ta SE R2 Chi2 df RMSEA GFI NFI CFI Perceptions of 1 .68 12.47 .05 .40 6.76* 2 .08 .99 1.00 1.00 Politics 2 .79 15.43 .05 .57 3 .99 19.76 .05 .86 4 .96 19.73 .05 .89 5 .78 16.60 .05 .64 6 .88 15.27 .06 .67

Justice 70.12** 43 .04 .97 .98 .99 Distributive Justice 1 1.18 23.67 .05 .89 2 1.21 25.10 .05 .95 3 1.12 22.99 .05 .86 4 .97 17.84 .06 .61 Interactive Justice 5 .70 14.59 .05 .54 6 .95 20.58 .05 .82 7 .86 19.23 .05 .75 8 .77 17.53 .04 .67 Procedural Justice 9 .90 22.01 .04 .82 10 .92 22.90 .04 .86 11 .94 21.90 .04 .82 12 .94 22.58 .04 .83

Psychological Contract 1 .69 18.49 .04 .69 8.84* 3 .08 .99 .99 .99 Violations 2 .83 23.35 .04 .92 3 .77 20.17 .04 .77 4 .37 7.31 .05 .15 5 .57 11.96 .05 .38 a Paths with factor loadings larger than two time the standard error are significant. b Paths with t-values greater than 2.00 are significant at p ≤ .05 (one-tailed).

Table 4 continued Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Independent Variables Latent Observed Factor Variable Variable Loadinga Tb SE R2 Chi2 df RMSEA GFI NFI CFI Percieved Organiztional 1 .66 14.09 .05 .57 73.11*** 12 .12 .95 .94 .95 Support 2 .76 16.31 .05 .69 3 .46 9.21 .05 .26 4 .29 6.88 .04 .15 5 .64 14.54 .04 .54 6 .70 14.45 .05 .53 7 .53 11.53 .05 .43 8 .58 13.41 .04 .53

Work Locus of Control 1 .49 11.49 .04 .39 0 0 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 .69 15.95 .04 .77 3 .51 13.05 .04 .51

Workplace Spirituality 1 .63 20.29 .03 .78 0 0 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 .71 18.13 .04 .69 3 .59 19.86 .03 .77 4 .65 15.99 .04 .67 5 .61 20.04 .03 .77 a Paths with factor loadings larger than two time the standard error are significant. b Paths with t-values greater than 2.00 are significant at p ≤ .05 (one-tailed).

94 Table 5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Comparison, Predictor Variables One Factor Solution Seven Factor Solution Ten Factor Solution Eleven Factor Solution Chi-square 739.94, 1280 p = .000 3902.50, 1259 p = .000 2084.15, 1235 p = .00 1869.10, 1225 p = .00 RMSEA .14 .09 .05 .04 GFI .48 .65 .80 .82 NFI .52 .75 .86 .87 CFI .57 .81 .94 .95

95 Table 6 Model Comparisons, Predictor Variables Model Dimensions 2 2 X df X diff dfdiff CFI RMSEA One Latent Variable 7393 1280 .57 .14 Seven Latent Variables 3902.50 1259 3490.50** 21 .81 .09 Ten Latent Variables 2084.15 1235 1818.35** 24 .94 .05 Eleven Latent Variables 1869.10 1225 215.05** 10 .95 .04 ** p ≤ .01

96 Table 7 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficientsa Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Organizational cynicism 2.75 .81 (.94) 2. Perceptions of organizational politics 3.04 .91 .55** (.92) 3. Organizational justice 3.62 .81 -.41** -.36** (.93) 4. Psychological contract violations 2.30 .71 .40** .35** -.47** (.86) 5. Perceived organizational support 3.17 .64 -.65** -.36** .46** -.39** (.87) 6. Work locus of control 4.20 .62 -.05 -.06 .14* -.30** .13 (.78) 7. Workplace spirituality 4.66 .59 .10 .05 .00 -.16* .10 .31** 8. Job tension 2.56 .85 .30** .22** -.23** .26** -.27** -.13 9. Teacher burnout 2.42 .80 .27** .16* -.24** .24** -.30** -.20** 10. Counterproductive work behavior 1.43 .36 .31** .27** -.21** .25** -.26** -.06 11. Compliance 3.49 .48 .13* .24** -.06 .11 -.04 .17* 12. Organization focused Citizenship behavior 4.21 .76 -.08 -.03 .37** -.16* .17* .12 13. Person focused Citizenship behavior 1.43 .68 -.12 -.02 .42** -.14* .19* .12 14. Individual performanceb -.05 1.13 -.05 -.12 .09 -.12 -.02 -.05 15. Organizational performance 4.04 .89 .06 -.16* .12 -.04 -.01 .07 16. Organization/School - - .01 .08 -.02 -.02 -.08 -.02 17. Tenure 15.91 8.93 .20** .10 -.07 .08 -.11 .00 18. Age 44.92 9.74 .07 -.03 -.03 .04 -.05 -.05 19. Race 3.61 1.05 -.12 -.11 .22** -.12 .07 .04 20. Genderc - - .11 .01 -.03 -.02 -.13 .07 21. Position 1.93 1.26 .06 .02 -.07 .07 .06 -.04 22. Education 3.02 1.21 .04 -.03 .04 -.10 -.10 .09 23. Negative Affect 1.58 .55 .35** .36** -.20** .25** -.30** -.10 24. Positive Affect 3.70 .54 -.18** -.20** .26** -.40** .25** .36** a Values along the diagonal represent reliability coefficients. b Standardized Z-score mean are shown. Actual means are instructional = 2.99, non- instructional = 4.63, principals = 3.19, assistant principals = 4.93. c Male is coded as 1 and female is coded as 2.

97 Table 7 continued Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficientsa Variables Mean s.d. 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Organizational cynicism 2.75 .81 2. Perceptions of organizational politics 3.04 .91 3. Organizational justice 3.62 .81 4. Psychological contract violations 2.30 .71 5. Perceived organizational support 3.17 .64 6. Work locus of control 4.20 .62 7. Workplace spirituality 4.66 .59 (.91) 8. Job tension 2.56 .85 -.06 (.87) 9. Teacher burnout 2.42 .80 -.06 .30** (.87) 10. Counterproductive work behavior 1.43 .36 -.10 .14* .22** (.84) 11. Compliance 3.49 .48 .19** .26** .13 -.01 (.50) 12. Organization focused Citizenship behavior 4.21 .76 .10 .06 -.05 -.01 .04 (.93) 13. Person focused Citizenship behavior 1.43 .68 .06 .02 -.01 -.07 .08 .80** 14. Individual performanceb -.05 1.13 -.04 -.24** -.05 -.12 -.11 .03 15. Organizational performance 4.04 .89 .04 -.05 .02 -.10 .02 .08 16. Organization/School - - .05 -.16 -.12 -.08 .07 -.12 17. Tenure 15.91 8.93 .09 .01 -.07 .20** -.03 -.06 18. Age 44.92 9.74 .03 -.07 .01 .07 -.09 -.08 19. Race 3.61 1.05 -.01 .07 -.20** -.10 .00 .06 20. Genderc - - .12 .09 .05 .01 -.06 .14* 21. Position 1.93 1.26 .02 -.20 .04 -.00 -.01 -.02 22. Education 3.02 1.21 .08 .07 -.08 .09 -.06 -.17* 23. Negative Affect 1.58 .55 -.10 .46** .26** .33** .23** -.02 24. Positive Affect 3.70 .54 .29** -.13 -.26** -.27** .07 .14* a Values along the diagonal represent reliability coefficients. b Standardized Z-score mean are shown. Actual means are instructional = 2.99, non- instructional = 4.63, principals = 3.19, assistant principals = 4.93. c Male is coded as 1 and female is coded as 2.

98 Table 7 continued Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficientsa Variables Mean s.d. 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. Organizational cynicism 2.75 .81 2. Perceptions of organizational politics 3.04 .91 3. Organizational justice 3.62 .81 4. Psychological contract violations 2.30 .71 5. Perceived organizational support 3.17 .64 6. Work locus of control 4.20 .62 7. Workplace spirituality 4.66 .59 8. Job tension 2.56 .85 9. Teacher burnout 2.42 .80 10. Counterproductive work behavior 1.43 .36 11. Compliance 3.49 .48 12. Organization focused Citizenship behavior 4.21 .76 13. Person focused Citizenship behavior 1.43 .68 (.94) 14. Individual performanceb -.05 1.13 .00 (.98) 15. Organizational performance 4.04 .89 .05 .00 16. Organization/School - - -.17* -.13 -.07 17. Tenure 15.91 8.93 -.09 .05 .04 -.05 18. Age 44.92 9.74 -.06 .05 .01 -.04 .69* 19. Race 3.61 1.05 .06 .07 .04 -.03 -.08 -.07 20. Genderc - - .14* .16* .09 -.02 .18** .17* 21. Position 1.93 1.26 -.12 .00 .09 .14* .13 .25** 22. Education 3.02 1.21 -.10 .05 -.08 -.11 .27** .17* 23. Negative Affect 1.58 .55 -.05 -.15* .05 -.09 -.02 -.17* 24. Positive Affect 3.70 .54 .09 .08 .13 -.01 .04 .12 a Values along the diagonal represent reliability coefficients. b Standardized Z-score mean are shown. Actual means are instructional = 2.99, non- instructional = 4.63, principals = 3.19, assistant principals = 4.93. c Male is coded as 1 and female is coded as 2.

99 Table 7 continued Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliability Coefficientsa Variables Mean s.d. 19 20 21 22 23 1. Organizational cynicism 2.75 .81 2. Perceptions of organizational politics 3.04 .91 3. Organizational justice 3.62 .81 4. Psychological contract violations 2.30 .71 5. Perceived organizational support 3.17 .64 6. Work locus of control 4.20 .62 7. Workplace spirituality 4.66 .59 8. Job tension 2.56 .85 9. Teacher burnout 2.42 .80 10. Counterproductive work behavior 1.43 .36 11. Compliance 3.49 .48 12. Organization focused Citizenship behavior 4.21 .76 13. Person focused Citizenship behavior 1.43 .68 14. Individual performanceb -.05 1.13 15. Organizational performance 4.04 .89 16. Organization/School - - 17. Tenure 15.91 8.93 18. Age 44.92 9.74 19. Race 3.61 1.05 (1.00) 20. Genderc - - .04 (1.00) 21. Position 1.93 1.26 -.23** -.08 (1.00) 22. Education 3.02 1.21 .15* .03 -.21** (.86) 23. Negative Affect 1.58 .55 -.02 -.05 -.18** .03 (.88) 24. Positive Affect 3.70 .54 .02 .08 -.02 .10 -.40** a Values along the diagonal represent reliability coefficients b Standardized Z-score mean shown. Actual means are instructional = 2.99, non- instructional = 4.63, principals = 3.19, assistant principals = 4.93 c Male coded as 1 and female coded as 2.

100 Table 8 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Organizational Cynicism on Workplace Perceptionsa Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F β Step 1: Controls .13 .13 5.33 School .00 Tenure .01* Age .00 Race .00 Gender .07 Position .05t Education .07 NA .15** PA .17** Step 2: Main Effects .72 .52 63.80 Perception of Politics .20*** Organizational Justice -.08t Psychological Contract violations .13* Perceived Organizational Support -.55*** a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

101 Table 9 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysisa Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F β Step 1: Controls .13 .13 5.33*** School .00 Tenure .01* Age -.01 Race .01 Gender .07 Position .05t Education -.01 NA .14* PA .15* Step 2: Main Effects .52 .39 51.06*** Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** Organizational Justice -.08t Psychological Contract Violations .16** Perceived Organizational Support -.53*** Work Locus of Control .02 Step 3: Interactive Effects .52 .01 1.03 Perceptions of Organizational Politics × -.02 Work Locus of Control Perceptions of Justice × .08 Work Locus of Control Psychological Contract Violations × -.03 Work Locus of Control Perceived Organizational Support × -.17t Work Locus of Control a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 102 Table 10 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analysisa Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F β Step 1: Controls .13 .13 5.33*** School .00 Tenure .01 Age .00 Race .00 Gender .06 Position .05t Education -.01 NA .14* PA .13* Step 2: Main Effects .52 .39 51.15*** Perceptions of Organizational Politics .19*** Organizational Justice -.07t Psychological Contract Violations .13* Perceived Organizational Support -.55*** Workplace Spirituality .06 Step 3: Interactive Effects .53 .01 2.04 t Perceptions of Justice × -.01 Workplace Spirituality Perceptions of Organizational Politics × .98 Workplace Spirituality Psychological Contract Violations × -.07 Workplace Spirituality Perceived Organizational Support × -.15 Workplace Spirituality a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 103 Table 11 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Job Tension on Organizational Cynicisma Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F β Step 1: Controls .22 .22 10.40*** School .00 Tenure .00 Age .00 Race .04 Gender .03 Position -.05 Education .05 NA .67*** PA .05 Step 2: Linear Effects .28 .06 27.39*** Organizational Cynicism .30*** Step 3: Curvilinear Effects .29 .00 1.57 Organizational Cynicism .65t Organizational Cynicism2 -.06 a Beta Weights are reported for each step (n = 335) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

104 Table 12 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Teacher Burnout on Organizational Cynicisma Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F β Step 1: Controls .13 .13 5.40*** School .00 Tenure .00 Age .00 Race -.08* Gender -.02 Position .07t Education .02 NA .27*** PA .27*** Step 2: Linear Effects .18 .05 18.50*** Organizational Cynicism .25*** Step 3: Curvilinear Effects .18 .00 .57 Organizational Cynicism .46 Organizational Cynicism2 -.04 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 332) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

105 Table 13 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Workplace Outcomes on Organizational Cynicism Independent Personal Organizational Compliancea Counter Individual Organizational Variables Citizenship Citizenship Productive Work Performancec Performanced Behaviora Behaviora Behaviora Step 1: Controls School .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Tenure .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 Age .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.01 Race .04 .04 .04t .00 .00 .14 Gender .20* .24* -.07 -.03 .38* .28 Position -.07* -.02 -.02 .05 .00 .11 Education -.01 -.08** -.02 .03 .00 .15t NA -.07 -.11 .13** .29*** -.16 -.05 PA .11 .21** .17*** -.01 .09 .42 Step 2: Organizational Cynicism -.10 -.07 .09** .08* -.02 .19 R2 .08 .09 .09 .19 .06 .06 ∆R2 .01 .00 .02 .01 .00 .01 ∆F 3.79* 1.45 6.10** 5.33* .06 1.90 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 335) b Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 332) c Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 312) d Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 236) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

106 Table 14 Summary of Hypotheses Results Hypotheses Results Antecedents 1. Hypothesis 1 Supported 2. Hypothesis 2 Supported 3. Hypothesis 3 Supported 4. Hypothesis 4 Supported Moderation 5. Hypothesis 5a Not Supported 6. Hypothesis 5b Not Supported 7. Hypothesis 5c Not Supported 8. Hypothesis 5d Not Supported 9. Hypothesis 6a Not Supported 10. Hypothesis 6b Not Supported 11. Hypothesis 6c Not Supported 12. Hypothesis 6d Supported Outcomes 13. Hypothesis 7 Not Supported 14. Hypothesis 8a Not Supported 15. Hypothesis 8b Not Supported 16. Hypothesis 9 Supported 17. Hypothesis 10 Supported 18. Hypothesis 11a Supported 19. Hypothesis 11b Not Supported

107 Table 15 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation a Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism Job Tension Job Tension Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 .00 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 .06t .07t Gender .07 .01 .00 Position .05t -.05 -.07t Education .07 .05 .05 NA .15** .58*** .55*** PA .17** .17* .13 Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** -.04 Organizational Justice -.08t -.15* -.13* Psychological Contract Violations .13* .21** .18** Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** -.10 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .23** R2 .52 .29 .31 ∆R2 .39 .07 .09 F 26.18*** 10.19*** 10.40*** df 13, 320 13, 320 14, 319 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

108

Table 16 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism a Teacher Burnout b Teacher Burnout b Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 -.01 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 -.07* -.07* Gender .07 -.06 -.07 Position .05t .07* .07 Education .07 .00 .00* NA .15** .17* .15* PA .17** -.22** -.24*** Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** .04 Organizational Justice -.08t -.03 Psychological Contract Violations .13* .00 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** -.29** -.22* Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .12 R2 .52 .19 .20 ∆R2 .39 .06 .07 F 26.18*** 5.77*** 5.55*** df 13, 320 13, 318 14, 317 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) b Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 332) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

109

Table 17 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism Personal Citizenship Personal Citizenship Behavior Behavior Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 .00 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 .02 .02 Gender .07 .19* .19* Position .05t .00 -.05 Education .07 .00 .00 NA .15** -.08 -.09 PA .17** .04 .03 Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** .12** .11** Organizational Justice -.08t .38*** .38*** Psychological Contract Violations .13* .03 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** .02 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .02 R2 .52 .23 .23 ∆R2 .39 .17 .17 F 26.18*** 7.49*** 6.94*** df 13, 320 13, 320 14, 319 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

110

Table 18 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism Organizational Citizenship Organizational Citizenship Behavior Behavior Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 .00 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 .02 .02 Gender .07 .24* .23* Position .05t .00 .00 Education .07 -.07 -.07* NA .15** -.12t -.13 PA .17** .13t .13t Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** .11* .09* Organizational Justice -.08t .36*** .37*** Psychological Contract Violations .13* .02 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** .00 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .06 R2 .52 .21 .21 ∆R2 .39 .12 .12 F 26.18*** 6.39*** 5.99*** df 13, 320 13, 320 14, 319 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

111 Table 19 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism Counterproductive Work Counterproductive Work Behavior Behavior Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 .00 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 .00 .00 Gender .07 -.02 -.02 Position .05t .05* .04* Education .07 .04* .04* NA .15** .29*** .28*** PA .17** -.01 -.02 Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** .00 -.01 Organizational Justice -.08t -.03 -.03 Psychological Contract Violations .13* .06 .05 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** -.03 .00 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .06 R2 .52 .23 .24 ∆R2 .39 .02 .02 F 26.18*** 7.51*** 7.13*** df 13, 320 13, 320 14, 319 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

112 Table 20 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism Compliance Compliance Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 .00 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 .04* .04 Gender .07 -.06 -.07 Position .05t -.01 -.02 Education .07 -.01 -.01 NA .15** .12* .09* PA .17** .19*** .18*** Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** .13*** .12*** Organizational Justice -.08t .03 Psychological Contract Violations .13* .07t .07 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** .02 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .05 R2 .52 .13 .13 ∆R2 .39 .06 .06 F 26.18*** 3.32*** 3.35*** df 13, 320 13, 320 14, 319 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

113 Table 21 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism Individual Performance Individual Performance Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .00 .00 Age .00 .00 .00 Race .00 .00 .00 Gender .07 -.02 -.02 Position .05t .05* .04* Education .07 .04* .04* NA .15** .29*** .28*** PA .17** -.01 -.02 Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** .00 -.01 Organizational Justice -.08t -.03 -.03 Psychological Contract Violations .13* .06 .05 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** -.03 .00 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .06 R2 .52 .23 .24 ∆R2 .39 .02 .02 F 26.18*** 7.51*** 7.13*** df 13, 320 13, 320 14, 319 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

114 Table 22 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation Independent Variables Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Organizational Cynicism a Organizational Organizational Performanceb Performanceb Controls: School .00 .00 .00 Tenure .01* .02 .01 Age .00 -.02 -.02 Race .00 .09 .09 Gender .07 .26 .21 Position .05t .14 .12 Education .07 -.18* -.17* NA .15** .13 .07 PA .17** .42* .38t Main Variables: Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** -.33** -.45** Organizational Justice -.08t .23 Psychological Contract Violations .13* .11 Perceive Organizational Support -.55*** -.42* -.15 Mediator: Organizational Cynicism .43* R2 .52 .10 .12 ∆R2 .39 .05 .07 F 26.18*** 1.91* 2.17** df 13, 320 13, 221 14, 220 a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) b Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 235) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001

115 Table 23 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysisa Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F Cynical Behavior Step 1: Controls .10 .10 3.89*** School .00 Tenure .01 Age .00 Race .02 Gender .01 Position .03 Education .00 NA .16* PA .08 Step 2: Main Effects .30 .20 18.16*** Perceptions of Organizational Politics .21*** Organizational Justice -.03 Psychological Contract Violations .11t Perceived Organizational Support -.34*** Workplace Spirituality -.01 Step 3: Interactive Effects .33 .03** 3.19** Perceptions of Justice × .17* Workplace Spirituality Perceptions of Organizational Politics × .01 Workplace Spirituality Psychological Contract Violations × -.13 Workplace Spirituality Perceived Organizational Support × -.21 Workplace Spirituality a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 116 Table 24 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysis a Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F Cynical Behavior Step 1: Controls .10 .10*** 3.90*** School .00 Tenure .01 Age -.01 Race .04 Gender -.02 Position .05 Education .00 NA .16* PA .10 Step 2: Main Effects .30 .20*** 18.02*** Perceptions of Organizational Politics .20*** Organizational Justice -.03 Psychological Contract Violations .13 Perceived Organizational Support -.38*** Work Locus of Control .00 Step 3: Interactive Effects .32 .02t 2.14t Perceptions of Organizational Politics × .06 Work Locus of Control Perceptions of Justice × .21** Work Locus of Control Psychological Contract Violations × .15 Work Locus of Control Perceived Organizational Support × -.01 Work Locus of Control a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 117 Table 25 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysisa Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F Cynical Beliefs Step 1: Controls .11 .11*** 4.54*** School .00 Tenure .00 Age .00 Race -.05t Gender .11 Position .03 Education -.01 NA .09 PA .20** Step 2: Main Effects .52 .41*** 54.35*** Perceptions of Organizational Politics .27*** Organizational Justice -.10* Psychological Contract Violations .18** Perceived Organizational Support -.585*** Work Locus of Control .07 Step 3: Interactive Effects .53 .01 1.87 Perceptions of Organizational Politics × -.11 Work Locus of Control Perceptions of Justice × .01 Work Locus of Control Psychological Contract Violations × -.15t Work Locus of Control Perceived Organizational Support × -.25* Work Locus of Control a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 118 Table 26 Results of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Post Hoc Analysisa Independent Variables R2 ∆R2 ∆F Cynical Affect Step 1: Controls .11 .11 4.28*** School .00 Tenure .02** Age -.01* Race .05 Gender .14 Position .08* Education .00 NA .16t PA .13 Step 2: Main Effects .41 .30 32.46*** Perceptions of Organizational Politics -.12t Organizational Justice .10t Psychological Contract Violations .16* Perceived Organizational Support -.66*** Work Locus of Control .00 Step 3: Interactive Effects .42 .01 .95 Perceptions of Organizational Politics × -.03 Work Locus of Control Perceptions of Justice × .00 Work Locus of Control Psychological Contract Violations × -.12 Work Locus of Control Perceived Organizational Support × -.25t Work Locus of Control a Beta Weights are reported for the final step (n = 334) t p ≤ .10 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 119

APPENDIX A Letter of Consent and Participant Survey

120

Matrecia S. L. James, Ph.D. Candidate Department of Management Florida State University

Dear Potential Survey Participant,

My name is Matrecia Long James. As a doctoral candidate at Florida State University, I am collecting data for my dissertation, under the direction of Professors Gerald R. Ferris and Wayne A. Hochwarter. The purpose of this study is to gain knowledge in the area of employee attitudes and organizational outcomes and your school district has agreed to participate in this study. Your school district is not providing financial assistance to either FSU or me to complete this study. Moreover, your participation is completely voluntary. Choosing not to participate will have no adverse consequences for you concerning your relationship with your school district.

What can you do to help? By taking 20 to 30 minutes to answer the questions on the attached survey, you will be providing the valuable information that I need from current employees in the workplace. In order to advance research, I need to hear from real employees in actual organizations. As we all know, the world of work is not always pleasant. Therefore, in order to gain better insight into the true dynamics and relationships in the workplace, I will need to gather information related to both positive and negative aspects of your job. Moreover, your answers will help, in part, to understand what employers can do to make a more positive work environment for their employees.

Will your answers be confidential? Absolutely! All completed surveys will be collected by me personally or mailed directly to me at Florida State University. Only I will view your responses to this survey. Research data is more credible when information is obtained from multiple persons with multiple points of views. Because I will be collecting information about your school and teacher performance from archival data, I need to be able to match your responses on this survey with other sources. In order to facilitate this, I have placed a numbered code on the first page of your scan sheet. A master list of matched employee responses and archival sources will be kept until the data is entered into the computer, at which time all identifying criteria will be destroyed and there will be no further way to identify individual employee responses. Until the master list is destroyed, it will be kept confidential and secured in a locked box kept in the researcher’s locked office. Thus, every effort has been made to keep the respondent’s identity confidential to the extent allowed by law.

What if you have questions? If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 850-594-5740 or at [email protected] or Dr. Gerald Ferris at 850-644-3548 or [email protected] or Dr. Wayne Hochwarter at (850) 644-7849 or [email protected]. Also, a summary of survey results will be available upon request.

Return of the questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Sincerely, Matrecia S. L. James Ph.D. Candidate Rovetta Business Building, Mail Stop 1110 · Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1110

Phone: (850) 644-3869 · Fax: (850) 644-7843 · Email: [email protected]

121 Instructions: Please complete the follow survey by marking your response to each of the questions in the appropriate section of the enclosed scan sheet with a No. 2 pencil.

After completing the survey, please discard the survey and place the scan sheet in the envelope provided and place it in the on-site drop box. (Please see the school personnel for the location of the drop box).

Thanks in advance for your cooperation!!

Section 1. Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

1. ____ I really feel that I belong in my school. 2. ____ My school has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 3. ____ I am proud to belong to my school. 4. ____ I am fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities I have. 5. ____ I am fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put forth. 6. ____ I am fairly rewarded for the work that I have done well. 7. ____ I am fairly rewarded for the stressors and strains of my job. 8. ____ There are procedures in this organization designed to generate standards so that decisions can be made with consistency. 9. ____ There are procedures in place designed to hear the concerns of all those affected by an internal decision. 10. ____ There are procedures in this organization designed to provide useful feedback regarding decisions and their implementation. 11. ____ There are procedures designed to allow for requests for clarification or additional information about decisions. 12. ____ My supervisor considers my viewpoint. 13. ____ My supervisor shows concern for the rights of his/her employees. 14. ____ My supervisor provides me with timely feedback about the decisions and their implications. 15. ____ My supervisor takes steps to deal with me in a truthful manner. 16. ____ I listen to my co-workers when they have to get something off of their chests. 17. ____ I take the time to listen to my co-workers’ problems and worries. 18. ____ I take a personal interest in my co-workers. 19. ____ I show concern and courtesy to my co-workers, even under the most trying conditions. 20. ____ I take on extra responsibilities in order to help co-workers when things get demanding at work. 21. ____ I help co-workers with difficult assignments, even when assistance is not directly requested. 22. ____ I help co-workers with work when they have been absent. 23. ____ I assist co-workers with heavy workloads even though it is not part of my job. 24. ____ I think my school district keeps commitments. 25. ____ I think my school district behaves according to its commitments. 26. ____ I think my school district is dependable. 27. ____ I think that my school district meets its negotiated obligations to its employees. 28. ____ In my opinion my school district is reliable. 29. ____ I think the people in my school district keep their promises. 30. ____ I think my school district keeps the spirit of an agreement.

122 Section 2. Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

1. ____ It makes me uneasy to see an error in my work. 2. ____ One of my goals is to be perfect in everything I do. 3. ____ I never aim for perfection in my work. 4. ____ I must work to my full potential at all times. 5. ____ I must always be successful at work. 6. ____ The better I do, the better I am expected to do. 7. ____ My students’ parents expect me to be perfect. 8. ____ Those around me readily accept that I can make mistakes too. 9. ____ The people around me expect me to succeed at everything I do. 10. ____ Anything that I do that is less than excellent will be seen as poor work by those around me.

The following section consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Please indicate the degree to which you generally feel this way – that is, how you feel on the average. Please mark a letter on your scan sheet for each response using the scale below.

Very slightly or not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely A B C D E

11. ______Interested 12. ______Hostile 13. ______Nervous 14. ______Distressed 15. ______Enthusiastic 16. ______Determined 17. ______Excited 18. ______Proud 19. ______Attentive 20. ______Upset 21. ______Irritable 22. ______Jittery 23. ______Strong 24. ______Alert 25. ______Active 26. ______Guilty 27. ______Ashamed 28. ______Afraid 29. ______Scared 30. ______Inspired

Section 3. Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

1. ____ There is a lot of self-serving behavior going on. 2. ____ People do what's best for them, not what's best for the school district. 3. ____ People spend too much time sucking up to those who can help them. 4. ____ People are working behind the scenes to ensure that they get their piece of the pie. 5. ____ Many employees are trying to maneuver their way into the in-group. 6. ____ Individuals are stabbing each other in the back to look good in front of others. 123 Section 3 (continued). Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

7. ____ The most important things that happen to me involve my job. 8. ____ I am very much personally involved in my work. 9. ____ I live, eat, and breathe my job. 10. ____ I believe my school district says one thing and does another. 11. ____ My school district’s policies, goals, and practices seem to have little in common. 12. ____ When my school district says it’s going to do something, I wonder if it will really happen. 13. ____ My school district expects one thing of its employees, but rewards another. 14. ____ I see little similarity between what my school district says it will do and what it actually does. 15. ____ I often experience irritation when I think about my school district. 16. ____ I often experience aggravation when I think about my school district. 17. ____ I often experience tension when I think about my school district. 18. ____ I often experience anxiety when I think about my school district. 19. ____ I complain about how things happen in my school district to friends outside the organization. 20. ____ I exchange “knowing” glances with my coworkers. 21. ____ I often talk to others about the ways things are run in my school district. 22. ____ I criticize my school district’s practices and policies with others. 23. ____ I find myself mocking my school district’s slogans and initiatives. 24. ____ My job tends to directly affect my health. 25. ____ I work under a great deal of tension. 26. ____ I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job. 27. ____ If I had a different job, my health would probably improve. 28. ____ Problems associated with my job keep me awake at night. 29. ____ I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the school. 30. ____ I often “take my work home with me” in the sense that I think about it when doing other things.

Section 4. Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

1. ____ People pretend to care more than they really do. 2. ____ Most people will tell a lie if they can gain from doing so. 3. ____ Unselfish people are often taken advantage of. 4. ____ In general, most people are not honest by nature. 5. ____ By in large, most people feel put out when asked for help by others. 6. ____ In life, most people are simply out for themselves. 7. ____ If there is money at stake, personal ethics are thrown out the window. 8. ____ I try hard not to offend people in authority. 9. ____ I tend to go along with what people tell me even when I know they are wrong. 10. ____ Disagreeing with people often takes more time than it is worth.

124

Section 4 (continued). Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

11. ____ I generally believe in doing what I am told. 12. ____ I try hard to do what is expected of me. 13. ____ Almost all the promises made to me by my employer during recruitment have been kept so far. 14. ____ I feel that my employer has come through in fulfilling the promises made to me when I was hired. 15. ____ So far my employer has done an excellent job of fulfilling its promises to me. 16. ____ I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions. 17. ____ My employer has broken many of its promises to me even though I’ve upheld my side of the deal. 18. ____ I am held very accountable for my actions at work. 19. ____ I often have to explain why I do certain things at work. 20. ____ My principal holds me accountable for all my decisions. 21. ____ If things at work do not go the way they should, I will hear about it from my principal. 22. ____ To a great extent, the success of my immediate work group rests on my shoulders. 23. ____ The jobs of many people at work depend on my successes or failures. 24. ____ In the grand scheme of things, my efforts at work are very important. 25. ____ Co-workers, subordinates, and principals very closely scrutinize my efforts at work. 26. ____ A job is what you make of it. 27. ____ On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish. 28. ____ Most people are capable of doing their jobs well if they make the effort. 29. ____ In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members or friends in high places. 30. ____ Most employees have more influence on their supervisors than they think they do.

Section 5. Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects the number of times that you have done the following things at your present job.

Never Once or Twice Once or Twice Per Once or Twice Per Everyday Month Week A B C D E

1. ____ Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t. 2. ____ Told people outside of work what a lousy place you work for. 3. ____ Left work earlier than allowed. 4. ____ Took supplies home without permission. 5. ____ Insulted someone about their job performance. 6. ____ Ignored someone at work. 7. ____ Did something to make someone look bad. 8. ____ Avoided returning a phone call to someone you should at work.

125 Please respond to the following statements that pertain to your views of work. Mark the most appropriate response on your scan sheet using the scale below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E 9. ____ It is likely that I will actively look for a new job in the next year. 10. ____ I often think about quitting. 11. ____ I will probably look for a new job in the next year. 12. ____ In general, I like working at my job. 13. ____ All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 14. ____ I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. 15. ____ I help others who have been absent. 16. ____ I volunteer for things that are not required. 17. ____ I orient new people even though it is not required. 18. ____ I help others who have heavy work loads. 19. ____ I assist my supervisor with his or her work. 20. ____ I make innovated suggestions to improve the school. 21. ____ I believe in the existence of a spiritual being or God. 22. ____ I believe in the importance of spiritual forces influencing earthly events. 23. ____ I believe in life having a purpose. 24. ____ I believe in life having a destiny. 25. ____ I believe in the helpfulness of prayer. 26. ____ When there's a job to be done, I devote all my energy to getting it done. 27. ____ When I work, I do so with intensity. 28. ____ I work at my full capacity in all of my job duties. 29. ____ I strive as hard as I can to be successful in my work. 30. ____ When I work, I really exert myself to the fullest.

Section 6. Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E 1. ____ I feel that working closely with students causes a great deal of tension. 2. ____ I feel that teaching frustrates me. 3. ____ I consider leaving teaching. 4. ____ I feel that I work too hard in teaching. 5. ____ I feel that my teaching and working with students lead to burnout. 6. ____ I feel that teaching is turning me into an impatient person. 7. ____ My school district strongly considers my goals and values. 8. ____ My school district really cares about my well-being. 9. ____ My school district shows very little concern for me. 10. ____ My school district would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 11. ____ My school district cares about my opinions. 12. ____ If given the opportunity, my school district would take advantage of me. 13. ____ Help is available from my school district when I have a problem.

126 Section 6 (continued). Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best reflects your level of agreement with each of the items below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Or Disagree Agree Agree A B C D E

14. ____ My school district is willing to help me when I need a special favor. 15. ____ People at the highest levels in this school district get credit they do not deserve for work they didn’t do. 16. ____ Most people at the highest levels in this school district will think that things will get better instead of worse. 17. ____ It is hard to be hopeful at work because people at the highest levels in this school district have such bad attitudes. 18. ____ Efforts to make improvements are recognized by people at the highest levels in this school district. 19. ____ People one level above me get credit they do not deserve for work they didn’t do. 20. ____ Most people one level above me will think that things will get better instead of worse. 21. ____ It is hard to be hopeful at work because people one level above me have such bad attitudes. 22. ____ Efforts to make improvements are recognized by people one level above me. 23. ____ My co-workers get credit they do not deserve for work they didn’t do. 24. ____ Most of my co-workers will think that things will get better instead of worse. 25. ____ It is hard to be hopeful at work because my co-workers have such bad attitudes. 26. ____ Efforts to make improvements are recognized by my co-workers.

Please mark the letter on your scan sheet that best represents your circumstances (all information will be kept confidential):

27. Race: A = African American B = Asian C = Hispanic D = White E = Other 28. Gender: A = Male B = Female 29. Which of the following best describes your current position? A = Teacher B = Teacher’s Aide C = Office Personnel D = Other School Faculty

30. Which of the following best describes your current Level of Education? A = High School B = Associates Degree C = Bachelor’s D = Master’s E = Other ______

*SPECIAL SECTION* Please write the number that corresponds to your answer on the line labeled Section in the top left corner on the front of your scan sheet. Tenure in this school district (in years): ______

Please write the number that corresponds to you answer in the Student ID Number Grid in the top right corner on the front your of scan sheet and darken in the numbers below it. Age: ______

Thank you very much for your participation. Good Luck.

127

APPENDIX B Human Subjects Committee Permission Letter

128

129 REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism bases and consequences. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126, 269-292.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in Experimental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Ajen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management, 25, 231-292.

Andersson, L. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 1395-1418.

Anderrson, L., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the work place: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449-470.

Anderson, P. (2000). This place hurts my spirits! Journal for Quality and Participation (Fall): 16-17.

Anderson, N. H., & Armstrong, N. A. (1989). Cognitive theory and methodology for studying marital interaction. In D. Brindberg & D. Jaccard (Eds.), Dyadic decision making (pp. 3- 49). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Anson, R. H., Mann, J. D., & Sherman, D. (1986). Niederhoffer’s cynicism scale: Reliability and beyond. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 295-305.

Aryee, S., Pawan, S. B., Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267-277.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 106-116.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence of their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.

130 Bateman, T. S., Sakano, T. Fujita, M. (1992). Roger, me, and my attitude: Film propaganda and cynicism toward corporate leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 786-771.

Becker, H., & Geer, B. (1961). Boys in white. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699.

Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of workplace deviance. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional workplace behavior (pp. 221-239). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Blau. P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.

Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97-118.

Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., & Dean, J. W. (1999, May). Does organizational cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Paper presented at the 36th annual meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

Brandes-Ducan, P. (1995). An exploration of organizational cynicism. Working paper, University of Cincinnati.

Bransgrove, E. (1994). A decade of teacher stress: The changing nature of the determinants of teacher stress, 1981 to 1991. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 39-52.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33, 307-311.

Bromiley, P. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transactions costs in organizations with trust. In R. Bies, B. Sheppard, & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 219-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Caplan, R D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. U, Pinneau, S. R. Jr. (1975). Job demands and worker health. NIOSH Research Report, Cincinnati.

131 Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Relationships of work stressors with aggression withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.

Creed, W. E., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 16-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cropanzano, R. S., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-181.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coehn, S., & Willis, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Cole, M. S., Schaninger, W. S., & Harris, S. (2002). The workplace social exchange network: A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group and Organizational Management, 27, 142- 167.

Connor, K. M., Davidson, J. R. T., & Lee, L. (2003). Spirituality, resilience, and anger in survivors of violent trauma: A community survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 487- 494.

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

Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and parasaic virtue scales for the MMP. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414-418.

Copleston, F. (1985). A history of philosophy: Vol.1. Greece and Rome. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Cordes, C. L. & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621-656.

Costa, P. Zonderman, A., McCrae, R., & Williams, R. (1986). Cynicism and paranoid alienation in Cook and Medley Ho scale. Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 238-285.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.

Cutler, I. (2000). The cynical manager. Management Learning, 31, 295-312.

132 Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357-384.

Davidson, R. A., & Smith, B. D. (1991). Caffeine and novelty: Effects on electrodermal activity and performance. Physiology and Behavior, 49, 1169-1175.

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: Social psychology approach. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.

Dean, J. W. Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 22, 341-352.

Decker, L. R. (1993). The role of trauma in spiritual development. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 33, 33-46.

Dorman, J. P. (2003). The relationship between school and classroom environment and teacher burnout: A LISREL analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 107-127.

Drescher, K. D., & Foy, D. W. (1995). Spirituality and trauma treatment: Suggestions for including spirituality as a coping resource. National Center for PTSD Clinical Quarterly, 5, 4-5.

Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44-56.

Durkeim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1992). The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Janovich.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). Empathy and prosocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91-119.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820.

Eisenbeger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Eisler, R., & Montuori, A. (2003). The human side of spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 46-56). New York: M. E. Sharp, Inc.

133 Farmer, R. (1977). Cynicism: A factor in correction work. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 236- 246.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75-109.

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, 1286-1300.

Ferris, G.R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R.W., Hochwarter, W.A., & Ammeter, A.P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (Vol. 1, pp. 179-254). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Ferris, G.R., Harrell-Cook, G., & Dulebohn, J.H. (2000). Organizational politics: The nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In S.B. Bacharach & E.J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 17, pp. 89-130). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Ferris, G. R., Perrewè, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 25-37.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.

Fraser, B. J. (1988). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and application. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-33.

Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213-237). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185-214.

Goldfarb, J. (1991). The cynical society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Goldner, F. H., Ritti, R. R., & Ference, T. P. (1977). The production of cynical knowledge in organizations. American Sociological Review, 42, 539-551.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantum Books.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociology Review, 25, 161-178.

134 Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.

Griffn, R. W., & Bateman, T. S. (1986). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and oprganizational psychology (pp. 157-188). Chichester, IL: John Wiley & Sons.

Guastello, S., Rieke, M., Guastello, D., & Billings, S. (1992). A study of cynicism, personality, and work values. The Journal of Psychology, 126, 37-48.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 535-540.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogation, and confessions: A handbook. Chichester, IL: Wiley.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester, IL: Wiley.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (2003). The relationship of compliance with coping strategies and self-esteem. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 117-123.

Hamilton, V. L. (1980). Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the attribution process. Journal of Personality Psychology, 39, 767-772.

Hart, K. E. (1999). Cynical hostility and deficiencies in functional support: The moderating role of gender in psychosocial vulnerability to disease. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 69-83.

Hochwarter, W. A. (2003). The interactive effects of pro-political behavior and politics perceptions on job satisfaction and affective commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 360-1378.

Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., Perrewé, P. L., & Johnson, D. (2003). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 438-456.

Hock, R. R. (1988). Professional burnout among public school teachers. Public Personnel Management, 17, 167-189.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.

House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540-545.

135 House, R., & Rizzo, J. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 388-396.

Houston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships: An overview. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Houston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 3-28). New York: Academic Press.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.

Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & I. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445-505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

James, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1990). Focus of attention and locus of control as moderators of fraternal justice effects. Social Justice Research, 4, 169-185.

Johnson, J., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627-647.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.

Joreskog, K. & Sorborn, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Kacmar, K.M., & Baron, R.A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Kahn, R.L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 571- 650). Palo Alton, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self–attitude and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. The Journal of Opinion Quarterly, Summer, 163-204.

Kelly, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

136 King, M., Speck, P., & Thomas, A. (1999). The effect of spiritual beliefs on outcome from illness. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1291-1299.

Klein, J., & Wasserstein-Warnet, M. (2000). Predictive validity of the locus of control test in selection of school administrators. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 7-21.

Kolodinsky, R. W., Bowen, M. G., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Embracing workplace spirituality and managing organizational politics. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 164-180). New York: M. E. Sharp.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). The credibility factor. Health Forum Journal, 36, 16-24.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum.

Kumar, P., & Ghadially, R. (1989). Organizational politics and its effects on members of organizations. Human Relations, 42, 305-315.

Lal, B. J., Srinivas, E. S., & Brandes, P. (2004). Organizational cynicism: An examination of construct validity, antecedents and correlates. Paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.

Lamude, K. G., Scudder, J., & Furno-Lamud. (1992). The relationship of student resistance strategies in the classroom to teacher burnout and teacher type-A behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 597-610.

Larkin, T. K., Martin, R. R., & McClain, S. E. (2002). Cynical hostility and the accuracy of decoding facial expressions of emotions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 285-292.

Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. (2000). Power distance, gender and organziational justice. Journal of Management, 26, 685-704.

Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 232-241.

Lepore, S. J. (1995). Cynicism, social support, and cardiovascular reactivity. Health Psychology, 14, 210-216.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of typological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lin, C., & Ding, C. G. (2003). Modeling information ethics: The joint moderating role of locus of control and job insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 335-343.

Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1983). The confidence gap: Business labor, and government in the public mind. New York: The Free Press.

137 Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing, and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 8, 50-60.

Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467-483.

Macher, K. (1986). The politics of organizations. Personnel Journal, 65, 80-84.

Malik, J. L., Mueller, R. O., & Meinke, D. L. (1991). The effects of teaching experience and grade-level taught on teacher stress: A LISREL analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 57-62.

Maslach, C. (1999). Progress in understanding teacher burnout. In R. Vandenburghe & A. M. Huberman (Ed.), Understanding and preventing teacher stress: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 211-222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.

Meyerson, D. E. (1990). Uncovering socially undesirable emotions: Experiences of ambiguity in organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 296-307.

Miles, R. E., & Creed, W. E. D. (1995). Organizational forms and managerial philosophies: A descriptive and analytical review. In B. W. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 333-372). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review, 34, 54-72.

Miller, L. E., & Grush, , J. W. (1988). Improving predictions of expectancy theory research: Effects of personality expectations, and norms. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 107-122.

138 Mirvis, P., & Kanter, D. L. (1992). Beyond demography: A psychological profile of the workforce. Human Resource Management, 30, 45-68.

Moore, M. (Producer & Director) (1989). Roger & Me [Film]. Burbank, MD: Warner Brothers.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

Motowildo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115-126.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Newcomb, M. D. (1990). Social support by many other names: Towards a unified conceptualization. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 479-494.

Niederhoffer, A. (1967). Behind the shield: The police in urban society. Garden City, NJ: Anchor.

O’Connell, B. J., Holzman, H., & Armamdi, B. R. (1986). Police cynicism and the modes of adaptation. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14, 307-313.

Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1990). Self-inference processes: The Ontario Symposium, (Vol. 6). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97.

Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents of stressors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 48-67.

Parker, C., Dipboye, R., & Jackson, S. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 5, 891-912.

Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. (2000). Political skill: An antidote for workplace stressors. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 115-123.

Perrewé, P.L., & Spector, P.E. (2002). Personality research in organizational sciences. In G.R. Ferris & J.J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 1-64). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-112.

139 Porter, L.W. (1976, September). Organizations as political animals. Presidential address, Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 295- 336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). A sociocognitive model of attitude structure and function. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 245-285.

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, 201-212.

Regoli, B., Crank, J. P., & Rivera. G. F. (1990). The construction and implementation of an alternative measure of police cynicism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 395-409.

Regoli, B., Culbertson, R. G., & Crank, J. P. (1991). Using composite measures in police cynicism research: An application of canonical factor regression. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 41-58.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P. & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 44-59.

Rhodes, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836.

Roberts, J. A., Lapidus, R. S., & Chonko, L. B. (1997). Salespeople and stress: The moderating role of locus of control on work stressors and felt stress. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5, 93-108.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1992). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.

Robinson, S., & Greenberg, J. (1999). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In D. M. Rousseau & C. Cooper (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1-23). New York: Wiley.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525-546.

Rose, R. L., & Veiga, J. F. (1984). Assessing the sustained effects of stress management intervention on anxiety and locus of control. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 109- 198.

140 Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 121-139.

Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1- 43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184-215.

Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255-267.

Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Selye, H. (1982). History and present status of the stress concept. In L. Goldberg & S. Brenitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress (pp. 7-17). New York: Free Press.

Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23, 422-437.

Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1995). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 91-109). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108.

Smith, B. D., Cranford, D., & Mann, M. (2000). Gender, cynical hostility and cardiovascular function: Implications for differential cardiovascular disease risk? Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 659-670.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

141 Smith T. W., Pope, M. K., Sanders, J. D., Allred, K. D., & O’Keffe, J. L. (1988). Cynical hostility at home and work: Psychosocial vulnerability across domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 525-548.

Smith T. W., & Frohm, K. D. (1985). What’s so healthy about hostility? Construct validity and psychosocial correlates of the Cook and Medley Ho scale. Healthy Psychology, 4, 503- 520.

Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 4, 335-340.

Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1-11.

Stack, L. S. (1978). Trust. In H. London & J. E. Exner, Jr. (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 561-597). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Stern, D., Stone, J. R., Hopkins, C., & McMillion, M. (1990). Quality of students’ work experience and orientation towards work. Youth Society, 22, 263-282.

Stevens, G. B., & O’Neill, P. (1983). Expectation and burnout in the developmental disabilities field. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 615-627.

Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227-234.

Syrotnick, J.M. & D'Arcy, C. (1982). Occupational stress, locus of control and health among men in a prairie province. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 122-133.

Tatar, M., Kfir, D., Sever, R., Adler, C., & Regev, H. (1994). Integration of immigrant students into Israeli elementary and secondary schools: A pilot study. Jerusalem: The NCJW Institute for Innovation in Education, School of Education, The Hebrew University (in Hebrew).

Tatar, M., & Yahav, V. (1999). Secondary school pupils' perceptions of burnout among teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology 69, 457- 468.

Tartar, M. (2001). The significance of teachers for their students. Jerusalem: NCJW Research Institute for Innovation in Education (in Hebrew).

Tartar, M., & Horenczyk, G. (2003). Diversity-related burnout among teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 397-408.

142 Tate, R. (1998). An introduction to modeling outcomes in the behavioral and social sciences (2nd Ed.). Edina, MN: Burgess Publishing.

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455-472.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley

Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., & Bradburn, N. (1989). Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 401-421.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Valle, M.P., & Perrewé, P.L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Human Relations, 53, 359-386.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.

Van Dyne, L., & Vanderwalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 3-23.

Van Scotter, J.R., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.

Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. W., & Tesluk, P. E. (1996). Organizational cynicism and change. Working paper, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley Johnson & Sons.

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Austin, J. (1994). Organizational cynicism: An initial study. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 269-273.

Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Austin, J. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group and Organization Management, 25, 132-153.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.

Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 465-490.

143 Wilkerson, J. M., Davis, W. D., & Love, M. S. (2003, November). On cynicism and bad- mouthing: Links to citizenship behavior and coworkers’ influence. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, Clearwater.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institution of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.

Wilt, G., & Bannon, J. (1976). Cynicism or realism: A critic of Niederhoffer’s research into police attitudes. Journal of Police Science Administration, 4, 39-45.

Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315-334). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zellars, K. L., & Perrewé, P. L. (2003). The role of spirituality in occupational stress and well- being. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 300-313). New York: M. E. Sharp.

Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic resources, 1840- 1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 53-111). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

144 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matrecia Shalonda Long James was born in Marianna, Florida and grew up in the rural community of Two Egg, Florida, located 15 miles northeast of Marianna. She was the valedictorian of the 1989 graduating class of Malone High School in Malone, Florida and attended Chipola Junior College in Marianna, Florida for one year. Prior to obtaining her Ph.D. from the College of Business at the Florida State University, Matrecia obtained a Bachelors of Science Degree in Business Administration from the School of Business and Industry at Florida A & M University and a Master’s Degree in Business Education from the College of Education, also at Florida A&M University. Matrecia’s current research interests include cynicism in organizations, social influence, and workplace spirituality. She has published her work in numerous journals and conference Proceedings. Her professional experiences included responsibilities in management and academia. She was previously employed in the retail industry and the public school system. Additionally, Dr. James has taught Organizational Behavior courses in the College of Business as well as, co-developed human resource related online courses for the College of Education at the Florida State University.

145