Employee Cynicism and Resistance to Organizational Change

Author(s): David J. Stanley, John P. Meyer and Laryssa Topolnytsky

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Summer, 2005), pp. 429-459
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092912 .
Accessed: 18/05/2012 14:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and
Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

and Psychology,
of Business
10.1007/sl0869-005-4518-2

Journal
DOI:

Vol.

19, No.

4, Summer

2005

(?2005)

EMPLOYEE CYNICISM AND RESISTANCE

TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
David

J. Stanley

University

of Guelph

John P. Meyer
The University

Laryssa
Mercer

Ontario

of Western

Topolnytsky

Delta

Consulting

Ltd.

ABSTRACT: We offer a reconceptualization

of employee cynicism and present
the results of two studies to test the hypotheses
that (a) cynicism about an
is
from
organizational
change
distinguishable
skepticism about the change, more
forms

general
and

of

cynicism

(b) change-specific

ment,

situational

"antecedent"

(disposition

and

management),

and skepticism

cynicism
variables,

and

and

trust

relate differently

(c) change-specific

in manage

to personal

cynicism

accounts

for variance in employees' intention to resist change not explained by skepticism,

trust, and more general forms of cynicism. Study 1was conducted with employees
various changes, and Study 2
(N = 65) from several organizations
undergoing
with employees
(N = 701) from a single organization undergoing
restructuring
and

culture
for

tions

KEY

were
Results
change.
future
research
and
for

WORDS:

zational

cynicism;

consistent
with
generally
the management
of change

skepticism;

resistance;

organizational

prediction.
Implica
are discussed.

change;

organi

development.

INTRODUCTION
more
As organizations
to cope with a progressively
turbu
attempt
lent economic,
and social environment,
technological,
they rely increas
to adapt
to change
&
ingly on their employees
(Armenakis,
Harris,
1993). As has
Mossholder,
however,
long been recognized,
employees
This research was conducted
at the University
of Western
and supported
Ontario
by the Social
Sciences
and Humanities
Research
Council
of Canada.
of the first and second
The contributions
authors were equal.
to David
Address
J. Stanley, Department
of Psychology,
The University
of
correspondence
Western
Canada N6A
5C2. E-mail: dstanley@uoguleph.ca.
Ontario,
London,
Ontario,

429
0889-3268/05/0600-0429/0

? 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

430

often resist change

(Kotter & Schlesinger,
1996). There are
1979; Strebel,
reasons
but one that has received
for this resistance,
many
potential
is employee
attention
increased
2000;
recently
cynicism
(e.g., Abraham,
& Tesluk,
& Austin,
Brooks,
Reichers,
Wanous,
1997; Vance,
1996;
& Austin,
of how
2000). Our current understanding
Wanous,
Reichers,
to change, however,
is limited
reactions
and influences
cynicism develops
consensus
measurement
of
the
construct
of
in
the
definition
and
lack
by
& Dharwadkar,
1998). Our objectives
1996; Dean, Brandes,
(Andersson,
a definition
were
to
of
in the present
(a)
research,
therefore,
provide
across
context
work
and
that
is
invariant
and
non-work)
(e.g.,
cynicism
in general;
and (b) use
focus (e.g., management
organizational
change),
as the basis for predictions
the po
this conceptualization
concerning
as it pertains
to orga
of cynicism
and consequences
tential antecedents
nizational

change.

Definition

and Measurement

of Cynicism

in the
has a long history
dating back to the Cynic School
Cynicism
it
has
the
of
More
become
focus
4th century B.C. (Dudley,
1937).
recently,
a
in
contexts
et
Dean
of
Our
(Andersson,
1996;
al., 1998).
variety
study
of relevance
to organizational
in
here is on applications
behavior
emphasis
we
more
In
to
and
Table
reactions
1,
change
provide a
general,
specifically.
of
of
with
definitions
cynicism, along
sample items
representative
sampling
and
As can be seen, there are both similarities
from relevant measures.
are perhaps most obvious in
in these definitions.
The differences
differences
to different
of definitions
of cynicism pertaining
targets
(e.g.,
comparisons
in
change). Before we consider
organizational
people
general, management,
let us consider the similarities.
these differences
further, however,
literature
extensive
(1996) and Dean
reviews, Andersson
Following
in definitions,
et al. (1998) observed
there
that, despite obvious differences
was consensus
attitude
is a negative
that can be both broad
that cynicism
and behavioral
affective
and specific in focus, and has cognitive,
compo
of cynicism
that
nents. Both Andersson
and Dean et al. offered definitions
consensus.
in
Andersson
defined
this
felt
cynicism
emerging
they
captured
a
as
frustra
and
"both
characterized
by
specific attitude,
general
general
as well as contempt
toward and
and disillusionment,
tion, hopelessness,
or institution"
social convention,
distrust
of a person,
group,
ideology,
as "a negative
cynicism
(p. 1398). Dean et al. (1998) defined organizational
attitude

toward one's employing

cogni
(p. 345) comprising
organization"
is "a
More specifically,
dimensions.
and behavioral
tive, affective,
cynicism
of
lacks integrity"
belief that the organization
accompanied
by feelings
even
to
and
"tendencies
toward
shame"
and
"distress, disgust,
contributing
behavior"
and often disparaging
(pp. 345-346).
negative,

Table 1
The
Source
Kanter

Construct
and Mirvis

(1989)

Cynicism

Various

Name

Definitions

of Cynicism

Description
"cynics

are

close-minded

and

disillusioned.

cast

upon those they deal

aspersions
are self-centered
and believe
that people
...
and self-serving.
at work deeply
Cynics
doubt the truth of what
their management

They
with

Bateman,

Sukano

and

Fujitu (1992), Andersson

and Bateman (1997)

Cynicism

tell them and believe

that their companies,
of
take advantage
given a chance, will
them" (pp. 1-2).
reflects
distrustful
Cynicism
"negative,
attitudes
toward authority
and institutions"
(Bateman

et al., p. 768)

"M

ca

Cyn

ma

[c
of

ch

Ka

Ba

Cyn

or

"

to
It

Ba

Cyn
"

fo

af

Wr
Hu

Table
Source

Construct

Name

Reichers,
Wanous,
and Austin
(1997),

Cynicism

about

change

Wanous,
Reichers,
and Austin
(2000)

1 (Continued)

Description
a real loss
about change
involves
in leaders
of change
and is a response
to a history
of change
that are not
attempts

Subscale:

Cynicism
of faith

or clearly

entirely

successful

et al.,

(Reichers

of chang
p. 40).

supposed
won't
Subscale:

situation

solving
hard e
Vance,

Brooks,

Cynicism

and Tesluk (1996)

"the belief

reasons
(Vance

Abraham (2000)

that

organization
will continue

Personality
cynicism

for the better

change
is possible
but unlikely;
to fall far short of the

the
beyond
et al., p. 7).

"Personality
that is an

cynicism
innate,

control

of the

in the
that
ideal,

Subscale:
reality
for

cynic"

is the

only form of cynicism

a generally
trait reflecting
of human
behavior.
It is

stable

and weak
contempt
There
is a deep-rooted
interpersonal
bonding.
mistrust
of others
based upon the sweeping
conniving,
incapable

organiza
Subscale:

together
would

negative
perception
characterized
by cynical

generalization

doesn't

that the world

is filled with
dishonest,
and selfish people who are
uncaring,
of being pleasant
in social
interactions."
(p. 270)

"No one

to you."
Measured

subsca

Societal

cynicism

as the product
of the
may be viewed
cynicism
of the social contract
between
the individual
... The hallmark
and society
of the societal
cynic is
from the social and economic
institutions
that
estrangement

"Societal
breach

they blame for their fate. Their despair over the future leads
to short-term
with
and
every job assignment
interests,
a self-serving
in it
with
"What's
opportunity
approached

"Most

by it.

Measured

(1989

for me?"

which
(Kanter & Mirvis,
1989, p. 36) attitude,
in limited
and bitterness."
job involvement
(p. 271)
is targeted
toward big business,
Cynicism
"Employee
top
...
and "other" entities
in the workplace
management,
results

Employee
cynicism

of inequity
(p. 272)

Feelings
others."

Organizational
change

cynicism

cynics

from

"Work

as
is perceived
framework,
management
to continually
violated
its obligation
seek
to enhance
corporate
(p. 272)
performance."

cynicism

becomes

competence,
causing
distance
themselves
characterized
callousness

manage

Measured

and B

is a reaction
to failed
cynicism
change
of pessimism
about the success
efforts,
consisting
change
are
of future
efforts and the belief
that change
agents
a psychological
Within
contact
lazy and incompetent.

having
means
cynicism

employee

"Organizational

violation

Work

distinguish

"I often

a coping
individuals

from

for thwarted
strategy
or
to depersonalize
consumers.
Work
is
cynicism

numbness,
detachment,
by emotional
... and lack of
caring"
(p. 273)

"Most

to solv

do any

Measured
scale

Example
Measured

Arma

subsca

Cynicis

434

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

the definitions
offered by Andersson
(1996) and Dean et al.
Although
across
and potentially
(1998) are quite general,
contexts,
applicable
of
about
the
cynicism
including
study
they do not
organizational
change,
the precision
for deductive
afford
scale
(see
required
development
a
basis
for
the
1980). They do, however,
Hinkin,
1998; Schwab,
provide
more
a
of
return
to
We
definition.
this
discussion
precise
development
below. First, we illustrate
the need for greater
precision
by identifying
current definitions
of cynicism.
and measures
problems with
Potential
There

Problems

with

Current

Definitions

and Measures

are at least three potential

with
the way
in which
problems
is
is currently
defined
and measured.
First,
cynicism
being
as a complex, multi-facetted,
construct.
how
viewed
Rarely,

cynicism
commonly
of the various
made
for inclusion
ever, is a sound theoretical
argument
of these
within
the
components
complex
cynicism
"syndrome."
Many
are
"stand
trust)
components
(e.g., pessimism,
arguably
distinguishable
not
that
alone" constructs.
More
it
is
clear
these
individual
importantly,
or that they will always
will always
relate
components
"hang together,"
to
constructs.
them
in
other
the
definition
Hence,
similarly
combining
and measurement
of cynicism may be ill advised.
Similar
have
problems
on the Type A behavior
in research
been identified
pattern
(e.g., Spence,
traits (e.g., Paunonen,
& Pred, 1987) and the Big 5 personality
Helmeich,
too many
that "packing"
1998). In both cases, it has been demonstrated
can lead to loss of information
characteristics
into a construct
and mis
we argue
of research
Therefore,
that, at this
interpretation
findings.
it makes
of workplace
cynicism,
relatively
early stage in the investigation
sense to begin with a narrow, more focused,
definition
of the construct.
as is clear from Table 1, definitions
of cynicism
vary across
Second,

To illustrate,
consider
the five forms of cynicism
level of application.
to use contract
Abraham
she
described
(2000).
attempted
by
Although
are quite di
as a common
themselves
the
violation
theme,
descriptions
verse. The scales
to measure
the five forms
of cynicism
she adapted
can cause problems
in definitions.
This
for the
the differences
reflect
one of Abraham's
For example,
of research
interpretation
findings.
was
the five
of relations
between
to compare
the strength
objectives
outcome
and
antecedent
of cynicism
and various
variables.
forms
differ in terms of
the forms of cynicism
because
however,
Unfortunately,
is responsible
to determine
which
both content and focus, it is impossible
relations.
in the observed
as a multi-dimen
some
have treated
cynicism
investigators
Finally,
two dis
et al. (1997) identified
Reichers
sional construct.
For example,
and
attribution.
dimensions:
dispositional
pessimism
tinguishable
are pessimistic
about whether
changes will
cynical employees
Presumably
for differences

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

435

be successful,
lack of moti
and tend to attribute
failure to management's
to propose
vation
and ability. Although
reasonable
that
it is perfectly
are multi-dimensional,
constructs
there must be a strong rationale
for the
and the relations
between
the dimensions
dimensionality,
hypothesized
and the construct
should be clearly articulated
(see Law, Wong, & Mobley,
same
structure
the
should also apply across
dimensional
1998). Ideally,
forms of the construct
(see above). It is not clear that these criteria are met
in Reichers
et al. (2000)
and colleagues'
formulation.
Wanous
Moreover,
and
found
that
items
from
the
internal
attribution
the
recently
pessimism
scales
about the multi
loaded on a single factor. This raises questions
if not the construct.
exist
of the measure,
Similar problems
dimensionality
with the two-dimensional
et al. (1996).
framework
proposed by Vance
et al. (2000) noted that their investigation
Wanous
of cynicism
about
was
and cautioned
that further
organizational
change
preliminary,
in measurement
In the present
refinements
be required.
research,
might
we took up that challenge
to avoid the potential
and attempted
problems
et al., 1996;
above. Unlike
others
described
2000; Vance
(e.g., Abraham,
et al., 2000) who measured
Wanous
about
cynicism
organizational
our objective was to develop
a measure
in general,
of cynicism
change
as
more
about a specific organizational
initiative
well
(as
change
general
forms of cynicism).
to
In doing so, we used existing definitions
of cynicism
to be the "core essence" of cynicism,
identify what we considered
thereby
con
the potential
with
associated
avoiding
overly
complex
problems
structs that vary across contexts.

Toward

a Unifying
we

Definition

of Cynicism

et al. (1998)
(1996) and Dean
agree
Although
and
behavioral
in this
has
affective,
cynicism
components,
cognitive,
a
we
on
to
focused
the
definition,
attempt
preliminary
provide
unifying
our
was
the
of
attitude.
That
to
address
is,
cognitive
component
objective
about
the beliefs
that characterize
and how
disagreements
cynicism,
these beliefs
diner from those associated
with
constructs
related
(e.g.,
in
there is also considerable
trust). Admittedly,
skepticism,
variability
of the affect that accompanies
these beliefs. However,
based
descriptions
on the rationale
that cognition plays a major role in shaping
the labels we
attach to emotional
states
& Singer,
(Schachter
1962), we chose to focus
first on the cognitive
with
Consistent
attitude
research
in
component.
we
as
a
treat
the
behavioral
to
variable
be
general,
component
dependent
from measures
of the cognitive
and affective
predicted
components.
to Andersson's
Common
and colleagues'
(1996) and Dean
(1998)
definitions
of cynicism
is the belief that others lack integrity
and
general
cannot be trusted. This is consistent
with the Oxford English
Dictionary
of a cynic as one who shows "a disposition
to disbelieve
(OED) definition
that

with

Andersson

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

436

or goodness
of human
motives
and actions."
Conse
sincerity
our
we
for
of
defined
the
purposes
research,
component
cognitive
quently,
or implied motives
as disbelief
of cynicism
stated
for a
of another's
or action. Our emphasis
on motives
is intended
to distinguish
decision
from related
most notably
(see below).
constructs,
cynicism
skepticism
can be applied broadly
of cynicism
in
This definition
(e.g., to people
or narrowly
in a specific situation)
person
general)
(e.g., to a particular
can guide measure
In
of context.
and, therefore,
development
regardless
was
on
our
focus
the present
research,
change-specific
cynicism
primary
as a predictor
but we also developed
of employee
(or adapted)
resistance,
in the

measures

in general,
and about management,
about people
of cynicism
from change-specific
for purposes
of demonstrating
their distinction
to
of these measures
The
used
the
definitions
development
cynicism.
guide
a
were
as follows: change-specific
is
disbelief
of management's
cynicism
for a specific organizational
stated or implied motives
change; management
in management's
stated or implied motives
for deci
is a disbelief
cynicism
in the
is a disbelief
sions or actions
in general;
and dispositional
cynicism
or actions.
for their decisions
of people in general
stated or implied motives

Distinguishing

Cynicism

from Related

Constructs

is easily confused
is skepticism.
which
cynicism
et al., 1997)
Kanter
&
Reichers
Mirvis,
1989;
(e.g.,
Although
to
the
two
there
constructs,
is, as yet,
distinguish
specifically
attempted
no consensus
on how they differ. Kanter
and Mirvis
(1989) described
as doubting
to be
of communications,
but willing
the substance
skeptics
not
that
In
convinced
doubt
deeds.
contrast,
cynics
only
they suggested
by
it. Thus,
behind
but also the motives
of a communication,
the substance
were
seen as qualitatively
the two constructs
cynicism
different?only
et al. (1997) described
Reichers
involved doubts about motives.
skeptics as
One

construct with
some authors

of success while
the likelihood
still being
reasonably
hopeful
doubting
as much
less opti
that positive
change will occur. Cynics were viewed
of repeated
failure.
of a history
about the success of change because
mistic
seen
as
were
and
in
this
case, cynicism
Thus,
qualitatively
skepticism
about success.
in terms of the degree of optimism
similar, but differed
we again turned to the OED. According
to
this disagreement,
Given
in general."
to doubt or incredulity
is a "disposition
the OED, skepticism
we
is no specific
focus on motives.
there
Unlike
Therefore,
cynicism,
is likely to manifest
itself
reasoned
that, in a change context,
skepticism
a change will be effective. Hence,
in more general
doubts about whether
as
we define
the viability
doubt about
of a
skepticism
change-specific
of its stated objective. Note that the distinction
change for the attainment
we are making
and Mirvis
here is closer to that made
(1989)
by Kanter
we
that the
latter's
et
al.
than by Reichers
(1997).
argue
Indeed,

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

437

more
to skepticism
of cynicism
than to
corresponds
closely
as we have defined them.
cynicism
If cynicism
about an organizational
and skepticism
change
truly
involve
different
should
(i.e., have
beliefs,
differently
they
develop
If so, we should be able
different
and situational
antecedents).
personal
to detect differences
in their correlations
of these ante
with measures
For
should
relate more
cedents.
example,
change-specific
cynicism
to
than
forms
in
of
strongly
skepticism
cynicism
(e.g., people
general
the
of
and
general;
management's
perceived
adequacy
management),
the reasons for the change. In contrast, skepticism
attempt to communicate
in
should relate more strongly to perception
of management's
competence,
to the implementation
and as it pertains
of the change.
general
construct
with which
both cynicism
and skepticism
Another
might
be confused
of interest
in this
is trust. Given
the recent
resurgence
construct
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer,
1998), including
(e.g., see Rousseau,
to organizational
its relevance
& Spreitzer,
1998;
(e.g., Mishra
change
Morrison
to consider how trust differs
& Robinson,
1997), it is important
from cynicism
and skepticism.
Trust has also been defined
in various
a universal
and there has yet to emerge
and
ways
conceptualization
method
of measurement
&
Rousseau
1995;
Schoorman,
(Mayer, Davis,
et al., 1998). Despite
this lack of consensus,
in their review of
however,
common
con
et al. noted
that an element
to most
definitions,
Mayer
to assume risk" (p. 724). That is, those
is a "willingness
ceptualizations
who trust are willing
to make
to the potential
themselves
vulnerable
or actions of another.
from the decisions
consequences
negative
resulting
about an organizational
Admittedly,
cynicism and skepticism
change,
as we defined them, are likely to be related to trust-it
is unlikely
that one
definition

to the actions of another

if his/her
would willingly
make oneself vulnerable
were in question,
or the action was expected
motives
to fail. Indeed, if one
considers
the major antecedents
et al. (1995)
of trust identified by Mayer
see
is
to
and
how
also
easy
benevolence,
integrity,
ability-it
they might
contribute
to cynicism
in a change
context.
and skepticism
Integrity
to an acceptable
set of principles)
and benevolence
(adherence
(concern for
the individual's
in particular,
correlate negatively
with
well-being),
might
skills and competence)
should be nega
cynicism. Ability
(domain-specific
some anteced
Nevertheless,
tively related to skepticism.
despite
sharing
ents in common with trust, we argue that neither
nor
cynicism
skepticism
is synonymous
with trust. If for no other reason, we believe
that, because
or skepticism
either cynicism
alone would be sufficient
to cause mistrust,
can be considered
neither
redundant
with trust.
Cynicism
has

as a Predictor

of Intent

the successful
Although
an increasingly
become

to Resist

Organizational

implementation
issue,
important

Change

of organizational
changes
until recently
the majority

438

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

characterized
have
been
change
paradigms
by a macro-systems
over
&
1999). However,
Pucik,
Welbourne,
(Judge, Thoreson,
approach
on
the last decade
there has been a growing
the
of
importance
emphasis
to organizational
individual
reactions
Aktouf,
1992;
change
(e.g.,
Bray,
et al., 1999; Wanberg
& Ba?as,
2000). Moreover,
1994; Judge
employee
as a necessary
for organizational
support
change has been suggested
for a change
condition
for the success
with
2000). Consistent
(Piderit,
on individual-level
has re
this increasing
variables,
cynicism
emphasis
as a potential
antecedent
for re
ceived some attention,
albeit
limited,
to organizational
et
et al.,
sistance
Wanous
(Reichers
al., 1997;
change
of

2000).
et al. (1997) and Wanous
et al. (2000)
research
by Reichers
Although
in
about
they did
investigated
cynicism
organizational
general,
change
as
a
not examine
about
change. Moreover,
employee
cynicism
specific
et al.
of cynicism used by Reicher
the conceptualization
noted previously,
our conceptualization
more
of skepticism
(i.e.,
closely with
corresponds
there
is a paucity
of
doubts
of the change).
about the viability
Thus,
of man
research
the link between
perceptions
examining
employee's
for a change
initiative
and their level of compliance
motives
agement's
with

the change.
we propose
that change-specific
In the current
cyni
investigation,
to resist
cism will predict
intentions
That
who
is, employees
change.
that management
is engaging
in a change for reasons
other than
believe
to comply with management's
those stated
(or implied) will be unwilling
on change-specific
to
their
behavior.
This
request
change
emphasis
with
is
research
which
that
attitudinal
consistent
cynicism
specifies
are
the
and
criterion
is
obtained
when
predictor
optimal
prediction
in
&
terms
of
their
Fishbein,
1977; Eagly &
(Ajzen
comparable
specificity
in
illustrated
of this approach was recently
1993). The validity
Chaiken,
it was discovered
of organizational
the context
that, al
change where
was a good predictor
of intent to re
commitment
though organizational
was obtained
sist an organizational
by using
change,
optimal prediction
& Meyer,
commitment
2002). Consequently,
(Herscovitch
change-specific
we believe
constructs
cynicism,
(e.g., change-specific
change-specific
with a more general
will
than constructs
better
be
predictors
skepticism)
focus

(e.g., management-specific

Purpose

cynicism,

trust).

and Hypotheses

a general
were
to provide
in this research
Our primary
objectives
as a guide
to mea
of cynicism,
and to use this definition
definition
sure development
of organizational
the context
within
and research
we
the following
tested
In light of the forgoing
discussion,
change.
hypotheses.

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

1: Cynicism
about an organizational
Hypothesis
from
about
the change,
skepticism
guishable
forms of cynicism
and management),
(disposition

439

is distin
change
from more
general
and from trust in

management.

an organizational
2: Cynicism
and skepticism
about
Hypothesis
will
be more
have
different
antecedents.
Cynicism
change will
to
to dispositional
and management
related
cynicism,
strongly
and to the
of management's
and benevolence,
integrity
perceptions
the reasons
for the
amount
of communication
about
change,
more
to perception
of
related
whereas
will
be
skepticism
strongly
management's
specific).

ability

and

competence

(general

and

change

an organizational
3: Cynicism
and skepticism
about
Hypothesis
to re
to
of intention
the prediction
change will contribute
uniquely
more
even
with
forms
sist a specific organizational
general
change,
of cynicism
and trust in management
controlled.
two primary
1-a cross-sectional
studies.
study
Study
from
various
undergoing
change-was
employees
organizations
involving
2-a longitudinal
to test all three of our hypotheses.
conducted
Study
an
in
conducted
with
study
organization
undergoing
employees
a further
test of
and culture
used to provide
restructuring
change-was
we
our primary
2 and 3. Before
studies, however,
Hypotheses
conducting
as a first stage in the development
two laboratory
of
conducted
studies
measures
of change-specific
and skepticism.
To conserve
space,
cynicism
are summarized
these studies,
and the relevant
results,
briefly below.
We

conducted

PILOT RESEARCH
In the first pilot study, we used the construct
definitions
above to
seven
of
items
the
and
generation
cynicism
guide
eight change-specific
on
of
Hinkin
items
based
the
scale
skepticism
development
suggestions
(1980). A sample
(1998), Jackson
(1979), and Schwab
change-specific
to hide
item is "Management
is trying
for this
the reason
cynicism
item is "I have doubts that this change will
change." A sample skepticism
an employee
its objective." We then created vignettes
achieve
describing
with high or low cynicism
in
disbelief
and
motives)
(i.e.,
high or low
an
doubt
about
(i.e.,
skepticism
viability)
concerning
organi
impending
zational
students
(N = 122) read these vignettes
change. Undergraduate
and responded
to the items as they believed
the employee
would.
A
axis factor analysis
two factors
with oblimin rotation
revealed
principal
to cynicism
and skepticism,
All items had
corresponding
respectively.

440

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

on the appropriate
two factors
their
factor.
The
highest
loading
and the correlation
between
accounted
for 74.8% of the variance,
the
for unit-weighted
.43. The alpha
and
factors was
coefficients
cynicism
scales were
To determine
.96 and .93, respectively.
whether
skepticism
we
the scale scores were
the
influenced
by
manipulations,
appropriately
x 2 (high vs.
2 (high vs.
low skepticism)
conducted
low cynicism)
ANOVAs.

As expected,
revealed
effects of the
these analyses
strong main
on the cynicism
118) = 247.7, p < .01,
scale, F(l,
cynicism manipulation
=
on the skepticism
.65, and of the skepticism
scale, F(l,
manipulation
if
there were
also
118) = 170.1, p < .01, n2 = .56. Although
significant
cross-over
weaker.
These
effects,
considerably
they were
findings,
some
for the discriminant
of the two
evidence
therefore,
validity
provide
scales.

In the second pilot study, we assessed

the validity
of single-item
measures
of change-specific
how
("In your opinion,
likely is it
cynicism
that management
told you the true reason(s)
for the change?")
and
how
is
it
that
the
will
achieve
("In
your opinion,
skepticism
likely
change
as stated by management?")
to be used in Study 2 (see bfelow
its objective
measures
for rationale).
whether
the single-item
To determine
captured
we
in
the fore
variance
the
multi-item
measures,
repeated
meaningful
with a sample of 171 undergraduate
Par
students.
investigation
going
to the both the multi-item
and
read vignettes
and responded
ticipants
measures
measures.
were
for the multi-item
Results
similar
single-item
on the single
to those described
ANOVAs
conducted
above. The 2x2
measures
item
revealed
strong main effects of the cynicism manipulation
on the cynicism
167) = 147.5, p < .01, n2 = .47, and of the
item, F(l,
on
the
167) = 97.9,
item, F(l,
skepticism
manipulation
skepticism
=
<
were
as
there
n2
p
.01,
.37,
although
expected.
Again,
significant
crossover
weaker.
The single-item
effects,
cyni
considerably
they were
measures
with
the
cism and skepticism
both correlated
significantly
= .83 and
<
multi-item
scales
(r
.72, p
.01, respectively),
appropriate
in the single- and multi-item
variance
that the meaningful
suggesting
measures
is largely overlapping.

STUDY 1
Participants

and Procedure

were 65 individuals
1 not declared)
(31 men, 33 women,
Participants
in
at
various
least
20
hours
week
per
organizations.
They were
employed
courses
toward
from university
ads directed
recruited
(n = 20), through
=
a
contact
in a
and
the university
(n
33),
through
community
personal
= 12). The
was
of
small
(n
age
average
participants
organization

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

441

70% of
tenure was 7.4 years. Approximately
time.
full
respondents
a survey in which they were asked to think of
completed
Participants
or in progress,"
one which
a "single recent change, preferably
is pending
to
their
and to respond to a series of questions
of,
perceptions
pertaining
of each
and reactions
to, the change. To ensure that the various
aspects
to describe
the
asked
to participants
salient
they were
change were
or difficulties
that could
nature
of the change,
any benefits
including
an open-ended
from it, using
format. Typical
arise
response
changes
included mergers,
described
downsizing,
acquisitions,
by participants
33.8 years,

and the average

were employed

restructuring,
public
organizational
budget reductions,
job restructuring,
to private
lines.
of new product
sector transitions,
and the acquisition
the
the
ended
open
response
completed
questions,
participants
Following
described
below.
scales
change-relevant

Measures

measures
of change-specific
The survey
included
the multi-item
tested in the pilot studies. Additional
measures,
cynicism and skepticism
most developed
below. All used a Likert-type
for this study, are described
to 7 = strongly
format (1 = strongly
response
agree).
disagree
in general.
five
and people
management
Separate
in
to assess
cynicism
concerning
people
developed
and cynicism
about management
(man
general
cynicism)
(dispositional
of two
consisted
The dispositional
agement
cynicism measure
cynicism).
from the MMPI Cynicism
subscale
items adapted
(Cook & Medley,
1954),
one item adapted
and Mirvis
from the Kanter
(1989) scale, and two items
written
by the authors. A sample item is "I find that most people disguise
in the
all five items
for doing things." We wrote
their true motives
on
A
earlier.
scale
the
definition
based
provided
management
cynicism
in
"I
this
often
motives
of
item
is
the
question
management
sample
were
.78 and .83,
The Cronbach
organization."
alphas for these measures
concerning
Cynicism
were
item measures

respectively.
et al.
inManagement.
We used the definition
by Mayer
provided
as a guide in writing
A
trust in management.
five items to assess
a
conse
item
"Even
if
have
is
decision
bad
could
very
negative
sample
trust management's
The Cronbach
for me, I would
quences
judgment."
was
.85.
alpha for this measure

Trust

(1995)

to Resist Change. We wrote

Intention
three items to measure
employees'
in
intention
to resist the specific organizational
change
they described
to impose
the survey. A sample
item is "I will resist any efforts
this
.78.
change." The Cronbach
alpha was

442

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

to the dispositional
and management
In addition
Variables.
measures
measures
we
of variables
(described
above),
cynicism
developed
to
be
and
of
antecedents
skepticism.
likely
cynicism
Specif
hypothesized
as an antecedent
a measure
of
of communication
ically, we developed
measures
and
and
of
competence
change
cynicism,
management
(general
the
of skepticism. We wrote three items to measure
specific) as antecedents
extent
to which management
communicated
the reason
for the change
its reason for implementing
this
has clearly explained
(e.g., "Management
com
measure
to
items
of
overall
five
management
perceptions
change."),

Antecedent

in the decisions made by the management

petence
(e.g., "I have confidence
of manage
of this organization."),
and six items to measure
perceptions
to implement
ment's
the change
competence
(e.g., "I don't think manage
The
ment has what
this change work"
it takes to make
[reverse keyed]).
were
Cronbach
.88, .86 and .93, respectively.
alphas for these measures

RESULTS
The means,
standard
deviations,
are reported
of the study variables

Hypothesis

reliabilities
in Table 2.

and

correlations

for all

is distinguish
To test the hypothesis
that change-specific
cynicism
forms of cyn
from skepticism
about the change,
from more general
a confirmatory
we conducted
factor
icism, and from trust in management,
4 (Arbuckle,
likelihood
1999). Maximum
(CFA) using AMOS
analyses
were used, and fit was assessed
the Com
estimation
using
procedures
Root
Mean
and
the
Index
Fit
Bentler
1990),
(CFI;
Squared Error
parative
the fit of the
CFI
The
of Approximation
1990).
compares
(RMSEA; Steiger,
no
a
the
relations
to
null
that
model
model
of
among
(i.e.,
hypothesized
a
is
The
RMSEA
fit.
.90
indicate
than
and
values
variables),
greater
good
an absolute measure
to be
for the number
of parameters
of fit adjusted
RMSEA
values
estimated.
less than .05 indicate good fit, values between
.08 and .10 mediocre
between
.05 and .08 moderate
fit, and
fit, values
than .10 poor fit (Browne & Cudeck,
values greater
1993).
corre
with
latent variables
the fit of a model
We first assessed
as
items
served
Scale
constructs
under
to
the
five
investigation.
sponding
were allowed
to correlate.
This model
and all latent variables
indicators
= 576.34, p < .001;
a reasonably
good fit to the data (X2 [395]
provided
= .085). The latent variables
were all significantly
CFI = .957; RMSEA
able

estimates
Standardized
correlated.
parameter
are presented
in Table 3. Correlations
model
are presented
in Table 4.

for items in the five-factor

the latent variables

among

Table 2
Standard

Means,

Mean
1. Change-specific
2. Skepticism
3. Dispositional

Reliabilities

Deviations,

and

Correlations

for

Study

SD

2.99

1.42

3.68

1.61

.47**

cynicism

3.44

1.22

.22

4. Management
cynicism
5. Trust
in management

4.27

1.47

.54**

3.67

1.22

-.30*

-.54**

-.21

-.66**

(.81)

6. Communication

5.52

1.28

-.53**

-.30*

-.14

-.29*

.11

7. General

competence

4.42

1.35

-.45**

-.55**

-.25*

?.71**

.79**

8. Change
competence
9. Intention
to resist

4.88

1.45

-.35*

-.75**

-.21

-.59**

2.42

1.18

Note.
*p<.05,

Estimates
**p<.01.

cynicism

of each

scale's

internal

1V

(.94)

consistency

.49**

(.93)
. 26*
.50**

.67**

(Cronbach's

Alpha)

(.78)
.24

.18

(.83)

.34**

are presented

.56**
-.37**

-.4

on the diagonal

444

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table
Item

Parameter

I believe

and

Factor

Cynicism

Change-Specific
1.

Estimates

that management's

in Confirmatory

Obtained

Factor

Analysis

1
for this

motives

change

are

different

from

those

.701

stated

publicly
in promoting
2. I believe
that management
has a "hidden
agenda"
3. Management
in conveying
has been honest
the reasons
for this
to hide the reason
4. Management
is trying
.873
for this change
is more

5. There
6.
7.

to this

is admitting
than management
change
motives
for this change
.835
in introducing
intentions
this

I question
I believe

management's
that management's

different

than

8. Management

they are telling

has been honest

employees
in stating

1. I am

change

the desired
effect
(R)
change will have
.655
will achieve
its objective
change
to be convinced
its objectives
that this change will achieve
.923
will achieve
that this change
its objective
doubts

confident
quite
that
doubts

3. I need

this

will

7. I have

this

Dispositional
I often

that

this

change
achieve
change

Factor

Cynicism
wonder

4.
5.

.869

(R)

.839

achieve

its objective
as
will work

reason

hidden

what

will

about

another

things

In order to get ahead,

pretend
people
they really dob
I tend to be on my guard with
people
I had expected
I find

that most

Management

.747

people

disguise

.881

their

person
they

may

hate

to care more

so that

true motives

for doing
they will

one

about

are more

who

have

friendly
for doing

another
than

.564
.564
than

.682

.753

something

.691

Factor

Cynicism

.951

its objective
(R) .859
intended

.626

nice for mea

something
to care
2. Most
people
pretend
gain profit or an advantage*1
3.

.853

this

5. I question
whether
6. I think
this change
doubts

.813

very

Factor

4. I have

1.

are

change

Skepticism

2. I have

change
(R)

.787

for this

its objectives

this
change

1. I often question
the motives
of management
2. Management
in this organization
is always

in this
up-front

.624
organization
about
its reasons

.809

for doing things (R)

that

motives

for most

of the decisions

I believe

4.

in this organization
by management
its intentions
would misrepresent
I think
that management
it wanted
to make
for a decision
gain acceptance
is always

5. Management
Trust

there

are ulterior

3.

in Management

honest

Factor

about

its objectives

(R)

to

made
.668

.833

a choice,
to make
I would
not allow management
decisions
(R)
employee
well-being
.595
in risky situations
to follow management's
lead even
2.
in situations
to make
that affect
the right decisions
3. I trust management
me personally
1.

If I was

given

.577

.578

concerning
I am willing

.729

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

_Table
it comes

4. When
more

decisions

in management's

faith

if a bad

5. Even

to making
decision

could

trust management's

would

(Continued)_

that

me,
I would

in my

for me,

consequences

negative

indicates

adapted

indicates

adapted

from

All

indicated

own
.728

judgment

are statistically
significant
a reverse-keyed
(R) indicates
from Cook and Medley
(1954).

Note.
not

or
as much .794

I have

affect
as

judgment
have very

445

(p > .05). Parameters

item,

estimates
parameter
were
set to zero.

a Kanter

and Mirvis

for factors

item.

(1989)

Table 4
Correlations
Latent

12

Variable

the Latent

Among

Note.

Five-Factor

Model

1. Change-specific
cynicism
2. Skepticism
.488
3. Dispositional
.280
cynicism
4. Management
cynicism

.364
.631

.629

in management

5. Trust

in the

Variables

.359

-.658

-.339

-.221

-.767

= 65.

Table
Multiple

Regression

Analyses

Predicting

Skepticism

Change-specific

in Study

Criterion
Change-specific

Cynicism

Cynicism

and

1
Variable
Skepticism

Predictors
Dispositional

cynicism

Management
Communication

cynicism

.26
.50**
-.30**

General

competence

-.55**

Change
R2

competence

-.75**

Adjusted

R2

Note.

Regression

*p<

.05, **p

coefficients
<

are

standardized.

65.

.01.

To provide a more direct test of the specific predictions

in Hypothesis
we
combined
scales to form single
In
latent variables.
1,
systematically
all cases, these combinations
in a significant
resulted
in fit (i.e.,
reduction

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

446

Bentler
& Bonnet,
the change
in X2 values were
1980). Al
significant;
correlated
.48 in the five
and skepticism
though change-specific
cynicism
a model
a poor
the two latent variables
factor model,
produced
combining
= .131;
fit to the data (X2 [399] = 837.43, p < .001; CFI = .895; RMSEA
models
AX2 [4] = 261.09, p < .001). Similarly,
change-specific
combining
with
(X2 [399] = 650.53,
p < .001;
cynicism
cynicism
dispositional
=
=
<
CFI = .940; RMSEA
AX2
[4]
p
74.19,
.001), management
.099;
=
(X2 [399] = 654.53, p < .001; CFI = .939; RMSEA
.100; AX2
cynicism
=
in management
[399]
[4] = 78.19, p < .001), and trust
(X2
690.99,
= 114.60, p <
=
.01), all fit
p < .001; CFI = .930; RMSEA
.107; AX2 [4]
in the case where we combined management
the data less well. Only
that for the
did the fit approximate
and trust in management
cynicism
CFI = .951;
five-factor
model
[399] = 604.59,
(X2
p < .001;
=
=
two factors
that these
RMSEA
28.25, p < .01). Note
.090; AX2 [4]
1 is supported.
-.77 in the five-factor
model. Thus, Hypothesis
correlated
2

Hypothesis

and skepticism
that change-specific
To test the hypothesis
cynicism
we
have
conducted
would
different
antecedents,
multiple
regression
in which we entered
cyn
cynicism, management
dispositional
analyses
and
competence,
icism, communication,
change
management
general
are reported
as predictors.
in Table 5. Together,
The results
competence
Table 6
Multiple

Regression

Intention

Predicting

Analyses

To Resist

in Study

? r

Predictor

Step 1
Dispositional

.09

cynicism

.18
.34**

.16

Management
cynicism
in management
Trust

-.23

-.37**
.15*

R2
R2

Adjusted
Step

.10*

Dispositional

cynicism

-.01

.18
12

Management
cynicism
in management
Trust

06

cynicism

Change-specific
Skepticism

R2
Adjusted
A?2
Note.
*

p <

R2

.49**

.44**
.34**

Regression
**
p <
.05,

coefficients
.01.

are

standardized.

= 65.

.34**
-.37**

27*

.49**

57**

.67**

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

447

in change-specific
the predictors
for 44% of the variance
accounted
cyn
in skepticism.
As expected, management
icism and 58% of the variance
in
and communication
each accounted
for significant
variance
cynicism
and change
accounted
for unique
competence
cynicism,
change-specific
in skepticism.
to expectation,
variance
dispositional
cynicism
Contrary
did not relate significantly
to change-specific
general
cynicism. Although
with
and
correlated
competence
cynicism
significantly
change-specific
in either.
it did not account
for unique
variance
Conse
skepticism,
2 is only partially
quently, Hypothesis
supported.

Hypothesis

To test the hypothesis

that change-specific
and skepticism
cynicism
an
to
would
to resist
contribute
the
of
intention
uniquely
prediction
even
more
with
forms
of
and
cynicism
organizational
change,
general
we
trust
in management
conducted
hierarchical
controlled,
multiple
to resist the change as the dependent
regression
analyses with intention
variable. We entered
and
cynicism, management
dispositional
cynicism,
as predictors
trust in management
in Step 1 of the analysis,
and then
in Step 2. The results
entered
and skepticism
cynicism
change-specific
are reported
ac
in Table 6. The broad
and trust measures
cynicism
to resist. When
in intention
in
entered
and
accounted
for
cynicism
Step 2, change-specific
skepticism
together
an additional
34% of the variance,
and each accounted
for a unique
of
the
in
variance
criterion.
3
is supported.
the
Thus, Hypothesis
portion
counted

for 15% of the variance

STUDY 2
a
This study was part of a larger research
conducted
with
project
was
in the energy
sector. The organization
moderate-sized
organization
and culture
transformation
(from a bureau
restructuring
undergoing
a
to
innovative
with
and
the objective
of
cracy
profit-oriented
company)
in a newly deregulated
environment.
remaining
competitive

Participants

and Data

Collection

Procedures

Data were
collected
the administration
at two
of surveys
through
in time. The first survey was
sent through
inter-office mail
points
just
the second survey was admin
prior to the official launch of the change;
istered 8 months
later. A self-report measure
of resistance
to the change
was obtained
on both surveys; measures
of the antecedent
variables
and
were
and
included
in
the
first
change-specific
cynicism
skepticism
only
were
2 weeks
to return
the surveys,
and
survey.
Employees
given

448

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

were e-mailed
reminders
and posted on bulletin
boards a few days before
the deadline
all employees
for return. On both occasions,
in the company
over
were
At
to
invited
Time
100)
1,
1, 712 (67%)
(just
participate.
the
and
at
Time
637
(59%)
surveys,
2,
employees
completed
responded.
but employees
used self-generated
Surveys were completed
anonymously
on the two occasions.
to allow us to match
code numbers
For
responses
from the executive
data
obtained
(N = 11)
purposes,
group
present
were
in planning
not
and overseeing
initiative
involved
the change
were
on the
in the analyses.
Within-time
included
conducted
analyses
1 data from all of the remaining
Time
and time-lagged
respondents,
were
to
conducted
the data from those who responded
analyses
using
=
were
both surveys
At
Time
33%
of
77%
(N
329).
1,
male,
respondents
11% were managers
with
direct
21% were
worked
full time,
reports,
were
In the
and
67%
without
direct
frontline
workers.
managers
reports,
were
33%
of
78%
worked
full
male,
longitudinal
sample,
respondents
were
14% were managers
with
24%
direct
time,
managers
reports,
direct reports,
and 62% were frontline workers.
without

Measures

We measured
and Skepticism.
Change-specific
Cynicism
change-specific
measures
1 using
in
at Time
the single-item
and skepticism
cynicism
were
on a
earlier. Responses
made
described
cluded in the pilot research
scale (strongly
with higher
values
agree to strongly
disagree),
5-point
were
and
Recall
that
items
these
greater
indicating
cynicism
skepticism.
measures
1.
found to correlate highly with the multi-item
used in Study
measures
use
to
the
because
of
We were
manage
single-item
required
concerns
over survey
ment
length.
1 survey, we
shortened
Antecedent
In the Time
included
Variables.
versions
of Mayer
and integrity
and Davis's
(1999) ability, benevolence,
Four
scales to assess
items
of top management.
employees'
perceptions
were
is very capable
to measure
included
(e.g., "Top management
ability
benevolence
of performing
its job."), four items to measure
(e.g., "Top
and six items to
is very concerned
about my welfare."),
management
sense
measure
has a strong
of jus
integrity
(e.g., "Top management
were
and
these
scales
Cronbach
for
The
tice.").
.86, .91,
.86,
alphas
measure
an author-developed
three-item
We also included
respectively.
were given a detailed
for
of communication
explanation
(e.g., "Employees
was
was
.75.
The
for
this
scale
Cronbach
the
made]."
alpha
[why
change
were
on 5-point
made
scales
For
all
four measures,
responses
=
5
(1 = strongly
strongly
agree).
disagree;
(vs. resistance)
support
Self-reported
for
the change
support/resistance

for the change.

was
assessed

Employees'
a
using

level
101-point

of

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

449

Table 7
Means,

Standard

and

Reliabilities

Deviations,

for

Correlations

Study

Variables

SD

Mean

3.12

1.04

3.26

0.84

( 90)
39**

3. Ability

2.95

0.82

45**

(.69)
-. 50**

4. Benevolence

2.19

0.79

41**

43**

(.86)
.67**

5. Integrity
6. Communication

2.69

0.76

48**

-. 46**

.78**

(.91)
.79**

3.15

0.85

47**

36**

.47**

.39**

29**

_.3l**
?
18**

1. Change-specific
2. Skepticism

cynicism

7. Time

1 resistance

29.93

15.90

34*

32**

8. Time

2 resistance

27.46

15.02

23**

20**

? 24**

(.86)
.44**
-.33**
? 21**

(.75)
-.24**
? 15** 42**

are presented
on
of each scales
internal
(Cronbach's
consistency
Alpha)
in parentheses.
of the single-item
and
Reliabilities
cynicism
change-specific
items were
from pilot study data using
estimated
described
by Wa
skepticism
procedures
to calculate
and Hudy
the reliability
indicate we were unable
(1997). Dashes
nous, Reichers,
1 variables
for a single-item
N = 657-669
for Time
estimate
variable.
and 329 for Time
2
Note.

Estimates

the diagonal

Resistance.
*
p<
.05, **p

<

.01.

continuum
behavioral
and Meyer
(2002). The
developed
by Herscovitch
a range of change-relevant
continuum
behaviors.
reflects
Points
along
were
the continuum
labeled, from left to right, active resistance,
passive
A written
and
resistance,
compliance,
championing.
cooperation,
of each of the anchor points was provided. Active
resistance
description
was
as "demonstrating
to a
defined
extreme
in response
opposition
in overt behaviors
to ensure that
that are intended
change..
.by engaging
Table
Multiple

Regression

Analyses

Predicting

Change-specific

Criterion
Change-specific

Cynicism

and

in Study 2

Skepticism

Variable

Cynicism

Skepticism

Predictors

Ability

.08

-.45**

-.30**

-.50**

Benevolence

.05

-.41**

-.13*

-.43**

Integrity
Communication

24**

-.48**

-.05

-.46**

-.31**

?.47**

-.14**

-.36**

R2

.32**

.28**

Adjusted R2

.31**

.28**

were
Note.
All variables
N = 659.
*
**
p < .05,
p < .01.

measured

at Time

1. Regression

coefficients

are

standardized.

450

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

was
as "demonstrating
the change
fails." Passive
resistance
defined
in response
to a change...
in more
moderate
by engaging
opposition
or subtle
covert
at preventing
behaviors
aimed
the success
of the
was
as
minimum
defined
support
change." Compliance
"demonstrating
for a change. A compliant
individual
goes along with the change, but does
so almost
was
as "demonstrating
defined
reluctantly."
Cooperation
moderate
for the change. A cooperating
individual
support
when
it comes to the change, goes along with the spirit of the
to make modest
is prepared
sacrifices."
Finally,
championing
as "demonstrating
extreme
for a change. The
enthusiasm

exerts

effort
change, and
was defined
individual
is
to
of
him/her
and
is
above
what
go
beyond
technically
required
willing
when
it comes to the change." For purposes
of this study, the scale was
or higher
levels of resis
scored so that high values
reflect
less support,
tance.

RESULTS
standard
reliabilities,
Means,
deviations,
are reported
in Table 7.
variables
study

Hypothesis

and correlations

among

the

and communication
served as ante
benevolence,
Ability,
integrity
2. Benevolence,
in our test of Hypothesis
and
cedent variables
integrity,
were expected
to change-specific
to relate more
communication
strongly
to skep
to relate more
cynicism, whereas
ability was expected
strongly
as pre
all
four
variables
ticism. We tested this hypothesis
by including
are
in
8.
in regression
Table
As a
The
results
dictors
reported
analyses.
in
for
31%
of
the
variance
the
accounted
group,
change-specific
predictors
as
accounted
for unique variance,
and communication
cynicism;
integrity
same
not.
for
The
accounted
did
but
benevolence
predictors
expected,
in skepticism.
27% of the variance
Although
ability had the strongest
as expected,
for
also accounted
and benevolence
communication
relation,
2 is only partially
in skepticism.
variance
Thus, Hypothesis
unique
for
with
the antecedents
of relations
differed
patterns
supported?the
as pre
and skepticism,
but were not exactly
cynicism
change-specific
dicted.

Hypothesis
We
in this
entirety.

3
did not measure
study and were
we
Moreover,

or management
cynicism
cynicism
dispositional
to test Hypothesis
3 in its
unable
therefore
we
trust
did not measure
Rather,
directly.

451

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

Table
Regression

Multiple

Resistance

Predicting

Analyses

Criterion
Resistance

VariableSelf-reported

Behavior

Time

in Study

Behavior

Self-reported

Resistance

Behavior

Time

Predictors

Step 1
Ability
Benevolence
Integrity
R2

Adjusted R2
Step 2
Ability
Benevolence
Integrity
Change-specific

cynicism

Skepticism
R2

09

-.29**

-.19*

..24**

12

-.31**

-.00

-.18**

16*

-.33**

-.07

-.21**

11**

.06

^^**

.05

00

-.29**

-.15

.24**

08

-.31**

.02

-.18**

09

-.33**

-.01

-.21**

21**

34**

17**

32**

.15**

18**

.08**

Adjusted R2

17**

.07**

AR2

06**

.02*

Note.

All

dardized.

variables
predictor
= 656 for
analyses

resistance
behavior
and
*p < .05, **p < .01.

327

were

measured

predicting
for analyses

at Time
the

criterion

predicting

the

.23**
.20**

-.06

1. Regression
coefficients
1 and involving
at Time
criterion

at Time

are

stan

Time

2.

et al. (1995):
of trust identified
antecedents
by Mayer
that these variables,
in
and integrity.
Assuming
as a proxy for trust, we used a hierarchical
multiple
to test the hypothesis
that change-specific
regression
analysis
cynicism
in the Times
and skepticism
each account
variance
1
would
for unique
measures
con
and 2 resistance
with ability, benevolence,
and integrity
in Step 1 of the analysis).
trolled (i.e., entered
The results are reported
in
Table 9.
at Time
1
and integrity
benevolence
measured
Together,
ability,
accounted
in resistance
at Times
for 11% and 6% of the variance
1 and 2,
in the Time 1
accounted
for unique
variance
respectively;
only integrity
and only ability accounted
in the Time 2
for unique
variance
measure,
measure.
measures
The Time 1 change-specific
and skepticism
cynicism
an
2%
accounted
for
6%
additional
and
of
the
in
variance
together
1 and 2, respectively.
at Times
resistance
for
accounted
Cynicism
unique
variance
in resistance
at both times, whereas
accounted
for
skepticism
the revised version
Thus,
unique variance
only for the Time 1 measure.
of Hypothesis
3 is partially
supported.
measured

the three

benevolence,
ability,
serve
combination,

452

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

GENERAL DISCUSSION
or specific and
is a negative
that can be general
attitude
Cynicism
has cognitive,
affective
and behavioral
(Andersson,
1996;
components
were
Dean
et al., 1998). Our objectives
to clarify the
in this research
and measurement
of cynicism,
and to examine
to
its relation
meaning
to organizational
reactions
employee
change. To this end, we identified
to be the "core essence"
what we believed
of cynicism
than
rather
are
as
a
it
There
several
treating
"syndrome."
complex
potential
to this approach.
it allows
for the development
of
First,
advantages
measures
at
levels
of
different
of
Second,
comparable
cynicism
specificity.
it minimizes
of research
the loss of information
and misinterpretation
are combined
that can result when
components
loosely related
findings
a general measure
et al., 1987; Paunonen,
within
(cf. Spence
1998). Fi
it helps
to clarify the boundaries
and related
between
cynicism
nally,
constructs
trust).
(e.g., skepticism,
In our attempt
to identify the core essence
of cynicism, we looked for
in existing
that in the authoritative
definitions,
commonality
including
was
OED. We
concluded
that the defining
characteristic
of cynicism
in the motives
disbelief
of others. This applies to cynicism
about people in
or about one or
about certain types of people (e.g., management),
general,
a specific context
more individuals
It
within
(e.g., organizational
change).
are inextricably
linked to other
is possible
that beliefs regarding motives
case there might
to expanding
in which
be benefit
the definition
beliefs,
in the future. We argue, however,
of cynicism
that any expansion
of the
on
construct
should proceed
evidence
solid
based
cautiously
empirical
construct
affords more
that "more is better"
complex
(e.g., that a more
In the
accurate
for action).
and more
prescription
precise
prediction
a change context,
at least within
evidence,
research, we provided
present
for a change
in the motives
disbelief
for distinctions
between
(cynicism)
more
concerns
of the change
and
about the viability
(skepticism)
general
of management.
and general mistrust

Cynicism

vs. Skepticism

et al. (1997)
and Mirvis
both Kanter
(1989) and Reichers
Although
were different,
and skepticism
that cynicism
they did not agree
argued
on the nature
for purposes
of the difference.
of this research,
Therefore,
more precise
we developed
to help clarify
definitions
of both constructs
the OED as a guide, we defined
the distinction.
change
Again,
using
as doubt about the viability
of the change in achieving
specific skepticism
can exist even in the absence
of
its stated objective. As such, skepticism
or implied motives
for the change. We provided
in the stated
disbelief
the two constructs
in two
between
preliminary
support for the distinction

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

453

about
and
of information
cynicism
pilot studies where
manipulation
on responses
to newly
had the intended
effects
developed
skepticism
in Study 1, we
scales. Moreover,
and skepticism
cynicism
change-specific
and
found that the items from the multi-item
cynicism
change-specific
of relations
scales loaded on separate
factors, and the pattern
skepticism
was
with
somewhat
different
for
variables
antecedent
hypothesized
measures
in
used
and
Even
the
Study 2
cynicism
single-item
skepticism.
and
variables
showed a different pattern
of relations with the antecedent
in resistance.
for unique variance
accounted
are related-they
and skepticism
correlated
Admittedly,
cynicism
= .47 and
<
1
2
in
and
both
Studies
(r
.01, respectively).
.39, p
positively
is causal,
It is not clear from the present
research whether
this relation
or is due to the fact that cynicism
ante
have common
and skepticism
was
cedents.
antecedents
Some
for the common
support
hypothesis
con
of the correlation
and regression
provided
analyses
by the results
1 and 2. Although
ducted in Studies
the patterns
of relations we observed
were
measures
we examined
all of the antecedent
somewhat
different,
same
in
the
with
both
and
Of
direction
correlated
cynicism
skepticism.
not
this
rule
out
the
that
and
does
course,
possibility
cynicism
skepticism
are themselves
related.
motives
causally
management's
Disbelieving
one
to
the via
be
factor
that
contributes
doubt
about
(cynicism) might
a
of
doubts
about
the
bility
Alternatively,
change
having
(skepticism).
a
of
for
its
the
attainment
of
stated
lead
viability
objectives might
change
to wonder
has ulterior
motives
for
whether
employees
management
the change.
implementing

Cynicism
We

vs. Trust

that cynicism
would
be related
to, but distin
hypothesized
trust.
Our
that
from,
guishable
suggest
findings
cynicism
change-specific
is indeed distinguishable
trust in management.
from general
The picture
was not quite as clear, however,
when
the focus of the cynicism was
we found management
not
itself.
management
Perhaps
surprisingly,
trust
and
in
to
be
and our
cynicism
management
correlated,
highly
a
factor
revealed
that
model
them fit
confirmatory
analysis
combining
the data almost as well as one that treated them as separate
factors. One
for this might
be that employees
who disbelieve
manage
explanation
are unlikely
ment's
stated or implied motives
to indicate
that they would
trust management
to make
conse
decisions
that could have negative
a
for
them.
In
other
be
condi
quences
words,
cynicism might
sufficient
tion for mistrust.
It might
not be a necessary
however.
For
condition,
concerns
about
to
lead
mis
example,
management's
competence
might
trust event when
there is no doubt about the veracity
of management's
motives.
the
distinction
between
Therefore,
demonstrating
management

454

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

cynicism
mistrust

and trust in future research might

require
can exist even in the absence
of cynicism.

Cynicism

and Resistance

demonstrating

that

to Change

was whether
in this research
Another
issue addressed
important
a
to
is
factor contributing
to organizational
resistance
cynicism
employee
as has been suggested
et al., 1997; Vance
et al.,
change,
(e.g., Reichers
we
asked
1996). Accordingly,
employees
currently
experiencing
organi
zational
to indicate whether
to resist the change
change
they intended
on a continuum
to championing
from resistance
(Study 1), or to indicate
how they would
characterize
their current
behavior
change-relevant
we
a
In
found
for
relation
both
evidence
between
2).
cases,
(Study
cyni
In Study
cism and resistance.
1, we found that change-specific
cynicism
more
to resist
intention
than did the
correlated
strongly with
change
more global forms of cynicism.
with previous
research
This is consistent
behavior
than do
that specific
attitudes
better
predict
demonstrating
& Ajzen,
attitudes
1975).
1993; Fishbein
general
(e.g., Eagly & Chaikin,
measure
In Study 2, we found that even the single-item
of change-spe
at the launch of a large organizational
cific cynicism
obtained
change
8 months
resistance
later. In both
predicted
significantly
self-reported
for a significant
of
accounted
studies,
cynicism
portion
change-specific
even with
measure
in the resistance
trust
the variance
and
skepticism
also accounted
controlled.
(or its antecedents)
skepticism
Interestingly,
in resistance
variance
in both studies.
for unique
in resistance
of variance
the amount
explained
significant,
Although
was modest
in both studies.
is not
This
by change-specific
cynicism
that can contribute
to
factors
that there are many
surprising
given
& Schlesinger,
resistance
1979). Interestingly,
(Hultman,
1998; Kotter
more
the resistance
correlated
strongly with
cynicism
change-specific
=
measure
1 (r
in Study
1).
.49) than it did in Study 2 (r = .34 at Time
measures
used
This might
be due, in part, to the fact that the multi-item
measures
in Study
1 were more
reliable
than the single-item
u$ed in
scores
was
more
in
in
2.
the
There
also
cynicism
Study
variability
Study
in
to the fact that employees
1 than in Study 2 (due, perhaps,
worked
and
All
else
different
many
greater
equal,
reliability
organizations).
is
Another
correlations.
possible
explanation
variability
produce higher
on self-reported
in Study 1 focused specifically
that the outcome measure
in Study 2 it involved a continuum
whereas
resistance,
reflecting
varying
for
should account
and support. Although
of resistance
cynicism
degrees
it might not explain variance
in level of self-reported
variance
resistance,
the correlation
in the level of support
Therefore,
among non-resistors.
2 might
the strength
of the relation
underestimate
in Study
obtained
resistance.
and
between
cynicism
self-reported

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

455

ac
We
also found
that change-specific
and skepticism
cynicism
measure
counted
for more
in the self-reported
resistance
variance
8 months
obtained
later. In
than in the measure
obtained
concurrently
in
variance
to potentially
addition
effects
of common method
greater
over time
concurrent measurement
associations
the weaker
(see below),
be due to efforts made by the organization
to promote
the change
might
town
in the interim
site
train
hall
visits;
management
(e.g.,
meetings;
we
were
to
determine
the
of
these
inter
unable
ing). Although
impact
to
ventions
in this study,
in future
it would
be interesting
research
as
are
em
determine
how effective
such
these
in
overcoming
attempts
ployee

cynicism

and resistance.

Limitations
Before discussing
the implications
of our findings
for future research
the management
it is important
to
of organizational
change,
the limitations
of the research.
First, we relied exclusively
acknowledge
on the use of self-report measures,
raise concern about the
which might
effect of common method
variance.
caution
must
be
certainly
Although
common
exercised
in interpreting
the zero-order
the
method
correlations,
variance
is of less concern
for the interpretation
of the regres
problem
our objective was to account
sion analyses where
In
for unique variance.
of common method
this case, the presence
variance would make
it more
to find support for our hypotheses.
difficult
The same is true for the CFA
to demonstrate
conducted
of the constructs.
We also
the distinctiveness
addressed
the common method
in part, by examining
variance
problem,
over time in Study 2.
relations
between
attitudes
and resistance
our research
did not allow us to draw meaningful
Second,
design
conclusions
about the direction
of causality.
As noted earlier,
although
we referred
as antecedents
to some variables
and others as outcomes,
was mad?
on purely
this distinction
theoretical
Even
the
grounds.
us
of
the
in
2
not
data
did
allow
to
address
analyses
longitudinal
Study
the issue of causality
and skepti
because we did not measure
cynicism
was
cism at Time 2. Our primary
in
this
research
to demon
objective
strate
the distinctiveness
of change-specific
from
related
cynicism
and to provide preliminary
evidence
for its links to resistance
constructs,
to organizational
of this research
set the
results
change. The positive
of causal connections.
stage for future investigation
we developed
new measures
several
for this research.
Finally,
we
careful
to
issues of validity
for some of these,
attention
Although
paid
most
we considered
and
notably
cynicism
change-specific
skepticism,
little more
than reliability
for others. Our confidence
in the findings,
rests on the assumption
that these measures
reflect
therefore,
accurately
the intended
was
constructs.
That
the pattern
of results
generally
and

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

456

with prediction
consistent
will require replication.
for Future

Directions

is encouraging,

but

confidence

in the findings

Research

our main findings,

to replicating
there are several
issues
In addition
we believe
that the
that warrant
further
First,
although
investigation.
of cyni
of the definition
for a narrowing
findings
justify our argument
we invite efforts to expand
As
cism to a focus on motives,
the construct.
we noted earlier, however,
in
terms
of
be
should
any expansion
justified
in
in prediction,
and
in information,
accuracy
improvements
gain
to
at
all
levels
the
attitude
be
It
should
also
of
applicable
applications.
research.
cross-level
facilitate
tests of our conceptualization
and mea
We also invite competitive
surement
of cynicism
others. For example, we noted earlier that
against
about
the definition
of cynicism
developed
by
organizational
change
et al., 2000)
et al., 1997; Wanous
Reichers
and her colleagues
(Reichers
as we have
more
to skepticism
than to cynicism,
closely
corresponds
a
it
the
but
will
them. This
is
testable
defined
require
hypothesis,
our
measures
measures.
address
that
Note
of
additional
development
a specific
whereas
and skepticism
about
initiative,
change
cynicism
measure
It should
focuses on change in general.
and colleagues'
Reichers
to develop measures
of cynicism
and
to apply our definitions
be possible
our
to
test
These
could
then
used
in
about
be
general.
skepticism
change
our
measures
current
to
be
used
with
could
also
along
They
hypothesis.
a
and
about
whether
determine
specific
skepticism
cynicism
measuring
behav
of employees'
accurate
initiative
affords more
prediction
change
about
and skepticism
than does cynicism
ioral response
to the change
in general.

change

on the cognitive
we focused
in this
of cynicism
component
Finally,
one
to deal
is difficult
that cynicism
of the reasons
research. Arguably,
emotions
with is that cynical beliefs are accompanied
by strong negative
to
is
needed
Future
research
disillusionment).
(e.g., anger, resentment,
are
of
and cognitive
how the affective
determine
components
cynicism
to influence
This research
behavior.
and how the two combine
related,
in
role than cognition
reveal
that affect plays an even greater
might
If
to
responses
change.
management-initiated
determining
employees'
to identify strategies
that are
to conduct research
so, it will be important
to change.
bases for resistance
in addressing
the emotional
effective

Implications
While
tion

and

for

the Management
the

acknowledging
the need for additional

of Change
of this preliminary
we conclude
research,
by

limitations

investiga
identifying

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

457

some of the implications

of our findings
and managing
for anticipating
resistance
to organizational
that
change. Our findings
suggest
employee
intention
relates to, and might
influence,
cynicism
employee
employees'
to resist change. Consequently,
those responsible
for managing
change
to take cynicism,
would
be well
advised
change-specific
particularly
into account.
cynicism,
our investigation
of the antecedents
of change-specific
Although
was
to illustrate
the distinction
limited, and intended
cynicism
primarily
some
the
between
and
offer
for
cynicism
findings
suggestions
skepticism,
the management
of these change-relevant
attitudes.
tended
Employees
to be more
about an organizational
cynical
change when
they were
about
in
cynical
management
cyni
general.
dispositional
Interestingly,
to change-specific
cism did not relate significantly
Therefore,
cynicism.
about a change seems to be a reaction
to experiences
within
the
cynicism
about
rather than to a more
"world view." Beliefs
organization
general
in general
and in the implementation
of
management's
competence,
albeit not as strongly as they were
change, were also related to cynicism,
to skepticism.
that employees'
then, this suggests
Again,
change-relevant
are shaped by their organizational
attitudes
The fact that
experiences.
were
and
to
both
related
per
cynicism
negatively
employee
skepticism
of the adequacy
of communication
about the change,
ceptions
provides
further
for the commonly
held
believe
that communication
support
should be a key component
in the effective
of any change
implementation
initiative
1998).
1992; Hultman,
(e.g., Connor,
communication
is undoubtedly
in overcoming
Although
important
we believe
on employee
to change,
resistance
that resistance
based
for management-one
that has
cynicism might provide a unique
challenge
not been adequately
in the change-management
addressed
literature.
some other forms of resistance,
Unlike
resistance
based on disbelief
in
cannot be easily addressed
motives
with facts and figures. Motives
must
be inferred
and actions,
from words
and the process
infer
of drawing
ences is highly
to
Once
manage
subjective.
question
employees
begin
ment's
it will
to convince
them that their
motives,
likely be difficult
are not justified?the
concerns
words
and deeds required
to convey this
will themselves
information
be questioned.
Indeed, there is the potential
here for an escalating
cycle of cynicism.
If attempts
to communicate
are
with
about the change
employees
in overcoming
unsuccessful
in the short term, as they are likely
resistance
to be, management
become
themselves
might
cynical about employees'
motives.
If so, it could lead them
to take actions
(e.g., withholding
that reinforce
and
information;
forcing compliance)
cynicism
employees'
so the cycle continues.
resistance-and
To avoid, or break,
this cycle of
must
that overcoming
will
cynicism,
management
recognize
cynicism
one
take time, and might
For
for
way
require special strategies.
example,

458

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

to convince
be to tie
of their true motives
management
employees
might
to the attainment
outcomes
of the
valued
(e.g., executive
compensation)
stated
of the change. Another
be to identify
trusted
objectives
might
within
individuals
of the sincerity
the organization
who, once convinced
can help to gain the support
of employees
at
of managements'
motives,
for the design of an effective
is to
however,
strategy,
large. A prerequisite
as we
essence
in motives?the
of cynicism
that disbelief
acknowledge
source of resistance.
in the
This was our objective
define
it-is a unique
more
we
As
learn
about
the
bases
for
present
cynicism,
study.
employee
we will be in a better position
to find ways
to address
it.

REFERENCES
R. (2000). Organizational
Bases
and consequences.
and
Genetic,
Social,
Abraham,
cynicism:
General
126, 269-292.
Psychology
Monographs,
A theoretical
relations:
and
I. & Fishbein,
M.
(1977). Attitude-behavior
analysis
Ajzen,
review
of empirical
research.
84, 888-918.
Bulletin,
Psychological
a critical
in the 1990s: Toward
and theories
of organizations
O. (1992). Management
Aktouf,
radical
humanism?.
Review,
17, 407?431.
Academy
of Management
causes
in the workplace:
and
L. M. & Bateman,
T. S. (1997). Cynicism
Some
Andersson,
effects. Journal
18, 449-469.
Behavior,
of Organizational
a contract
An examination
L. M.
violation
(1996).
cynicism:
Andersson,
using
Employee
framework.
Human
49, 1395-1418.
Relations,
4. Chicago:
Arbuckle
J. L. (1999). Amos
SmallWaters
Corp.
K. W.
for orga
A. A., Harris,
readiness
S. G., & Mossholder,
(1993). Creating
Armenakis,
nization
46, 681-703.
Relations,
change. Human
Film
T. S., Sakano,
(1992). Roger, me, and my attitude:
propa
Bateman,
T., & Fujita, M.
Journal
and cynicism
toward
77,
of Applied
Psychology,
corporate
leadership.
ganda
768-771.
tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis
of
P. M. & Bonett,
D. G. (1980). Significance
Bentler,
structures.
covariance
88, 588-606.
Bulletin,
Psychological
in structural
models.
P. M. (1990). Comparative
fit indexes
Bulletin,
Bentler,
Psychological
107, 238-246.
In A Howard
(Ed.).
(1994). Personnel-centered
diagnosis.
(pp.
organizational
Bray, D. W.
New York: Guilford
Press.
152-171).
fit. In K. A. Bollen
model
M. W. & Cudeck,
R. (1993). Alternative
of assessing
ways
Browne,
models,
structural
& J. S. Long
Park,
(pp. 136-162).
Newbury
(Eds.),Testing
equation
CA: Sage.
at the speed of change: How
resilient managers
succeed
and
D. R. (1992). Managing
Conner,
Books.
where
others fail. New York: Villard
prosper
for the
and pharisaic-virtue
scales
D. M.
(1954). Proposed
hostility
Cook, W. W. & Medley,
MMPI.
Journal
38, 414-418.
of Applied
Psychology,
R. (1998). Organizational
J. W. Jr., Brandes,
Dean,
Academy
P., & Dharwadkar,
cynicism.
342-352.
23(2),
Review,
of Management
and Co.
London: Methuen
D. R. (1937). A history
of cynicism.
Dudley,
Harcourt
Brace
The psychology
Toronto:
A. H. & Chaiken,
S. (1993).
of attitudes.
Eagly,
Jovanovich
Publishers.
College
to
introduction
M. & Ajzen,
I. (1975). Belief,
and behavior: An
intention,
attitude,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
theory and research.
Reading,
to organizational
of a
L. & Meyer,
J. P. (2002). Commitment
Herscovitch,
change: Extension
Journal
model.
87, 474?487.
of Applied
three-component
Psychology,
on the development
in survey
of measures
for use
T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial
Hinkin,
Research
1, 104-121.
Methods,
Organizational
questionnaires.
Fishbein,

DAVID J. STANLEY, JOHN P. MEYER, AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

K. (1998). Making
resistance
irresistible:
Hultman,
Overcoming
change
CA: Davies-Black
Palo-Alto,
Publishing.
organization.
in psychological
measurement.
D. N. (1979). Construct
Jackson.,
validity
on theory and application
management
office of personnel
colloquium

to change
Proceedings
in education

459

in your
of US
and

Princeton
New Jersey,
pp. 79-91.
employment
T. M. (1999). Managerial
C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne,
coping with
Judge, T. A., Thoreson,
Journal
84,
of Applied
change: A dispositional
perspective.
Psychology,
organizational
107-122.
San Francisco:
D. L. & Mirvis,
P. H. (1989). The Cynical
Americans.
Kanter,
Jossey-Bass.
Business
Re
J. & Schlesinger,
L. (1979). Choosing
for change. Harvard
Kotter,
strategies
106-114.
view, 57(2),
a taxonomy
of multidimensional
W. H. (1998). Toward
Law, K. S., Wong,
C-S., & Mobley,
constructs.
23, 741-755.
Review,
of Management
Academy
on trust
R. C. & Davis,
J. J. (1999). The effect of the performance
system
Mayer,
appraisal
for management:
A quasi-field
Journal
84,123-136.
of Applied
Psychology,
experiment.
of organizational
model
R. C, Davis,
J. J., & Schoorman,
F. D. (1995). An integrative
trust. Academy
Review,
20, 709-734.
of Management
to downsizing:
A. K. & Spreitzer,
G. M. (1998). Explaining
how survivors
Mishra,
respond
The role of trust,
and work
of Management
justice
Academy
empowerment,
redesign.
Review,
23, 567-588.
A model
of how
E. W. & Robinson,
S. L. (1997). When
feel betrayed:
Morrison,
employees
contract
violation
22, 226
Review,
Academy
of Management
develops.
psychological
256.
B. J., Holzman,
of
B. R. (1986). Police
and the modes
O'Connell,
H., & Armandi,
cynicism
Journal
Science
and Administration,
14, 307-314.
adaptation.
of Police
S. V. (1998). Hierarchical
of personality
and prediction
of behavior.
Paunonen,
organization
and Social
Journal
74, 538-556.
of Personality
Psychology,
A multidimen
and recognizing
S. K. (2000). Rethinking
resistance
ambivalence:
Piderit,
view
of attitudes
Re
sional
toward
of Management
Academy
organizational
change.
view, 25, 783-794.
A. E., Wanous,
J. P., & Austin,
J. T. (1997). Understanding
and managing
Reichers,
cyni
cism about organizational
Executive,
11(1), 48-59.
of Management
change. Academy
so
D.
S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer,
C. (1998). Not
after all: A
different
Rousseau,
M., Sitkin,
view of trust. Academy
23, 393-405.
Review,
of Management
cross-discipline
determinants
of
J. E. (1962). Cognitive,
and physiological
S. & Singer,
Schachter,
social,
emotional
states. Psychological
69, 379-399.
Bulletin,
D.
in organizational
behavior.
Research
in organiza
(1980). Construct
Schwab,
validity
tional behavior,
2, 3-43.
versus
J. T., Helmeich,
R. L., & Pred, R. S. (1987).
striv
achievement
Spence,
Impatience
on students'
Differential
and academic
achieve
health
effects
ings in Type A pattern:
ment.
Journal
72, 522-528.
of Applied
Psychology,
and modification:
An interval
J. H. (1990). Structural
estimation
model
evaluation
Steiger,
Multivariate
Behavioral
25, 173-180.
Research,
approach.
P. (1996 May). Why
do employees
86-92.
resist
Review:
Business
Strebel,
change?. Harvard
R. J., Brooks,
P. E. (1996). Organizational
S. M. & Tesluk,
Vance,
cultures,
cynical
cynicism,
and organizational
Center
for Applied
Behavioral
change.
Unpublished
manuscript,
State University.
Sciences,
Pennsylvania
C. R. & Banas,
in a
J. T. (2000). Predictors
and outcomes
of openness
to changes
Wanberg,
Journal
89, 132-142.
reorganizing
of Applied
Psychology,
workplace.
J. P., Reichers,
A
J. T. (2000).
about
Wanous,
E., & Austin,
Cynicism
organizational
antecedents
and correlates.
and Organization
change: Measurement,
Group
Manage
ment,
25, 132-153.
J. P., Reichers,
A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall
How good are
Wanous,
job satisfaction:
measures?.
Journal
247-252.
82(2),
single-item
of Applied
Psychology,
L. S. (1992). Assumptions
nature.
about
human
CA: Sage
Wrightsman,
Park,
Newbury
Publications.
Mayer,