employee cynicism and resistance to organisational change

8/9/2019 Employee Cynicism and Resistance to Organisational Change

1/32

Employee Cynicism and Resistance to Organizational ChangeAuthor(s): David J. Stanley, John P. Meyer and Laryssa TopolnytskyReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Summer, 2005), pp. 429-459Published by: SpringerStable 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 [email protected].

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

Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25092912?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25092912?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/32

Journal

of

Business and

Psychology,

Vol.

19,

No.

4,

Summer 2005

(?2005)

DOI:

10.1007/sl0869-005-4518-2

EMPLOYEE CYNICISM AND

RESISTANCE

TO

ORGANIZATIONAL

CHANGE

David

J.

Stanley

University of

Guelph

John

P.

Meyer

The

University

of

Western

Ontario

Laryssa

Topolnytsky

Mercer 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

organizational change is distinguishable from skepticism about the change, more

general

forms of

cynicism

(disposition

and

management),

and

trust

in

manage

ment,

(b)

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

relate

differently

to

personal

and situational

antecedent

variables,

and

(c)

change-specific

cynicism

accounts

for

variance

in

employees'

intention

to

resist

change

not

explained

by

skepticism,

trust,

and

more

general

forms of

cynicism.

Study

1

was

conducted with

employees

(N

=

65)

from

several

organizations

undergoing

various

changes,

and

Study

2

with

employees

(N

=

701)

from

a

single organization

undergoing restructuring

and

culture

change.

Results

were

generally

consistent

with

prediction.

Implica

tions

for

future research

and for the

management

of

change

are

discussed.

KEY

WORDS:

cynicism;

skepticism;

resistance;

organizational change; organi

zational

development.

INTRODUCTION

As

organizations

attempt

to

cope

with

a

progressively

more

turbu

lent

economic,

technological,

and social

environment,

they rely

increas

ingly on their employees to adapt to change (Armenakis, Harris, &

Mossholder,

1993).

As

has

long

been

recognized,

however,

employees

This

research

was

conducted

at

the

University

of Western

Ontario

and

supported

by

the Social

Sciences and

Humanities

Research Council of

Canada. The

contributions

of the

first

and

second

authors

were

equal.

Address

correspondence

to

David J.

Stanley,

Department

of

Psychology,

The

University

of

Western

Ontario, London,

Ontario,

Canada N6A 5C2.

E-mail:

[email protected].

429

0889-3268/05/0600-0429/0 ? 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.


3/32

430

JOURNAL

OF

BUSINESS

AND

PSYCHOLOGY

often resist

change

(Kotter

&

Schlesinger,

1979;

Strebel,

1996).

There

are

many

potential

reasons

for this

resistance,

but

one

that

has received

increased

attention

recently

is

employee

cynicism (e.g.,

Abraham, 2000;

Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Vance, Brooks, & Tesluk, 1996;

Wanous, Reichers,

&

Austin,

2000).

Our

current

understanding

of how

cynicism develops

and

influences

reactions

to

change,

however,

is

limited

by

lack

of

consensus

in the definition and

measurement

of the construct

(Andersson,

1996;

Dean,

Brandes,

&

Dharwadkar,

1998).

Our

objectives

in

the

present

research, therefore,

were

to

(a)

provide

a

definition of

cynicism

that is invariant

across

context

(e.g.,

work and

non-work)

and

focus

(e.g.,

management

in

general;

organizational change),

and

(b)

use

this

conceptualization

as

the

basis for

predictions

concerning

the

po

tential antecedents and consequences of cynicism as it pertains to orga

nizational

change.

Definition

and Measurement

of Cynicism

Cynicism

has

a

long history dating

back

to

the

Cynic

School in the

4th

century

B.C.

(Dudley,

1937).

More

recently,

it

has

become

the

focus

of

study

in

a

variety

of

contexts

(Andersson,

1996;

Dean

et

al.,

1998).

Our

emphasis

here

is

on

applications

of

relevance

to

organizational

behavior

in

general, and reactions to change more specifically. In Table 1, we provide a

representative

sampling

of

definitions

of

cynicism, along

with

sample

items

from relevant

measures.

As

can

be

seen,

there

are

both

similarities

and

differences

in

these definitions.

The

differences

are

perhaps

most

obvious

in

comparisons

of

definitions

of

cynicism pertaining

to

different

targets

(e.g.,

people

in

general,

management, organizational

change).

Before

we

consider

these differences

further,

however,

let

us

consider

the

similarities.

Following

extensive

literature

reviews,

Andersson

(1996)

and

Dean

et

al.

(1998)

observed

that,

despite

obvious

differences

in

definitions,

there

was consensus that cynicism is a negative attitude that can be both broad

and

specific

in

focus,

and has

cognitive,

affective

and behavioral

compo

nents.

Both

Andersson

and

Dean

et

al. offered

definitions of

cynicism

that

they

felt

captured

this

emerging

consensus.

Andersson defined

cynicism

in

general

as

both

a

general

and

specific

attitude,

characterized

by

frustra

tion,

hopelessness,

and

disillusionment,

as

well

as

contempt

toward

and

distrust of

a

person,

group,

ideology,

social

convention,

or

institution

(p.

1398).

Dean

et al.

(1998)

defined

organizational

cynicism

as

a

negative

attitude toward one's

employing

organization

(p.

345)

comprising

cogni

tive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. More specifically, cynicism is a

belief

that the

organization

lacks

integrity

accompanied

by

feelings

of

distress,

disgust,

and

even

shame

and

contributing

to

tendencies toward

negative,

and

often

disparaging

behavior

(pp.

345-346).


4/32

Table

1

The

Various

Definitions of

Cynicism

Source

Construct

Name

Description

Kanter and

Mirvis

(1989)

Cynicism

Bateman,

Sukano and

Fujitu

(1992),

Andersson

and Bateman

(1997)

Cynicism

cynics

are

close-minded and disillusioned.

They

cast

aspersions

upon

those

they

deal

with

and believe

that

people

are

self-centered

and

self-serving.

...

Cynics

at

work

deeply

doubt the

truth of

what

their

management

tell them

and believe

that their

companies,

given

a

chance,

will

take

advantage

of

them

(pp.

1-2).

Cynicism

reflects

negative,

distrustful

attitudes toward

authority

and institutions

(Bateman

et

al., p.

768)

c

Cy

m

[

o

c

K

B

Cy

o

t

I

B

Cy

f

a

W

H


5/32

Table

1

(Continued)

Source

Construct Name

Description

Reichers, Wanous, Cynicism about Cynicism about change involves a real loss

and Austin

(1997),

change

of faith

in

leaders

of

change

and

is

a

response

Wanous, Reichers,

to

a

history

of

change attempts

that

are

not

and Austin

(2000)

entirely

or

clearly

successful

(Reichers

et

al., p.

40).

Vance,

Brooks,

Cynicism

and Tesluk

(1996)

Abraham

(2000)

Personality

cynicism

the belief

that

change

for

the better

in

the

organization

is

possible

but

unlikely;

that

reality

will

continue

to

fall

far short

of

the

ideal,

for

reasons

beyond

the control of the

cynic

(Vance

et

al.,

p.

7).

Personality cynicism

is

the

only

form of

cynicism

that

is

an

innate,

stable

trait

reflecting

a

generally

negative

perception

of

human

behavior.

It

is

characterized

by

cynical contempt

and

weak

interpersonal bonding.

There is

a

deep-rooted

mistrust of others

based

upon

the

sweeping

generalization

that the world

is filled

with

dishonest,

conniving,

uncaring,

and

selfish

people

who

are

incapable

of

being pleasant

in

social

interactions.

(p.

270)

Subscale:

of

chan

suppose

won't

Subscale:

situatio

solving

hard

e

Subscale:

doesn't

organiz

Subscale:

together

would

No

one

to

you.

Measured

subsc


6/32

Societal

cynicism

Societal

cynicism

may

be viewed

as

the

product

of

the

breach

of

the social

contract

between

the

individual

and

society

...

The

hallmark

of

the

societal

cynic

is

estrangement

from

the social

and

economic

institutions that

they

blame for their

fate.

Their

despair

over

the future

leads

to

short-term

interests,

with

every

job

assignment

and

opportunity

approached

with

a

self-serving

What's

in

it

for me?

(Kanter

&

Mirvis, 1989,

p.

36)

attitude,

which

results in limited job involvement and bitterness. (p. 271)

Employee

Employee

Cynicism

is

targeted

toward

big

business,

top

cynicism management,

and

other

entities

in

the

workplace

...

Feelings

of

inequity

distinguish

employee

cynics

from

others.

(p.

272)

Most

by

it.

Measure

(198

I

ofte

manage

Measure

and

Organizational

Organizational

change

cynicism

is

a

reaction

to

failed

change

cynicism

change

efforts,

consisting

of

pessimism

about the

success

of

future efforts

and

the

belief

that

change

agents

are

lazy

and

incompetent.

Within

a

psychological

contact

violation framework, management is perceived as

having

violated its

obligation

to

continually

seek

means

to

enhance

corporate

performance.

(p.

272)

Work

cynicism

Work

cynicism

becomes

a

coping strategy

for thwarted

competence, causing

individuals

to

depersonalize

or

distance themselves from

consumers.

Work

cynicism

is

characterized

by

emotional

numbness, detachment,

callousness

...

and lack

of

caring

(p.

273)

Most

to

sol

do

an

Measure

scale

Example

Measure

Arm

subsca

Cynici


7/32

434

JOURNAL

OF

BUSINESS

AND

PSYCHOLOGY

Although

the

definitions

offered

by

Andersson

(1996)

and Dean

et

al.

(1998)

are

quite general,

and

potentially applicable

across

contexts,

including

the

study

of

cynicism

about

organizational change,

they

do

not

afford

the

precision required

for

deductive scale

development

(see

Hinkin, 1998; Schwab,

1980).

They

do,

however,

provide

a

basis for the

development

of

a

more

precise

definition.

We

return to

this discussion

below.

First,

we

illustrate

the need for

greater

precision by

identifying

problems

with current

definitions

and

measures

of

cynicism.

Potential Problems with Current

Definitions

and

Measures

There

are

at

least three

potential problems

with the

way

in

which

cynicism

is

currently being

defined and measured.

First, cynicism

is

commonly

viewed

as a

complex,

multi-facetted,

construct.

Rarely,

how

ever,

is

a

sound theoretical

argument

made for

inclusion

of

the various

components

within the

complex cynicism syndrome. Many

of

these

components

(e.g., pessimism,

trust)

are

arguably distinguishable

stand

alone

constructs.

More

importantly,

it is

not

clear

that

these

individual

components

will

always

hang

together,

or

that

they

will

always

relate

similarly

to

other

constructs.

Hence,

combining

them in

the definition

and

measurement

of

cynicism

may

be

ill

advised. Similar

problems

have

been identified in research

on

the Type A behavior pattern (e.g., Spence,

Helmeich,

&

Pred,

1987)

and

the

Big

5

personality

traits

(e.g.,

Paunonen,

1998).

In

both

cases,

it has

been

demonstrated

that

packing

too

many

characteristics into

a

construct

can

lead

to

loss of

information

and

mis

interpretation

of

research

findings.

Therefore,

we

argue

that,

at this

relatively early stage

in

the

investigation

of

workplace

cynicism,

it

makes

sense

to

begin

with

a

narrow,

more

focused,

definition of the construct.

Second,

as

is clear from Table

1,

definitions of

cynicism

vary

across

level of

application.

To

illustrate,

consider the

five forms of

cynicism

described by Abraham (2000). Although she attempted to use contract

violation

as a common

theme,

the

descriptions

themselves

are

quite

di

verse.

The

scales she

adapted

to

measure

the five forms of

cynicism

reflect

the differences

in

definitions.

This

can

cause

problems

for

the

interpretation

of research

findings.

For

example,

one

of Abraham's

objectives

was

to

compare

the

strength

of

relations

between

the five

forms

of

cynicism

and various

antecedent

and

outcome

variables.

Unfortunately,

however,

because

the forms of

cynicism

differ

in

terms

of

both

content

and

focus,

it

is

impossible

to

determine which

is

responsible

for differences

in

the

observed

relations.

Finally,

some

investigators

have treated

cynicism

as

a

multi-dimen

sional

construct.

For

example,

Reichers

et

al.

(1997)

identified

two

dis

tinguishable

dimensions:

pessimism

and

dispositional

attribution.

Presumably

cynical employees

are

pessimistic

about

whether

changes

will


8/32

DAVID J.

STANLEY,

JOHN P.

MEYER,

AND LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY 435

be

successful,

and

tend

to

attribute

failure

to

management's

lack

of moti

vation and

ability. Although

it is

perfectly

reasonable

to

propose

that

constructs

are

multi-dimensional,

there

must

be

a

strong

rationale for

the

hypothesized

dimensionality,

and

the

relations between the dimensions

and

the

construct

should be

clearly

articulated

(see

Law,

Wong,

&

Mobley,

1998).

Ideally,

the

same

dimensional

structure

should also

apply

across

forms

of the

construct

(see

above).

It

is

not

clear that these criteria

are

met

in

Reichers

and

colleagues'

formulation.

Moreover,

Wanous

et

al.

(2000)

recently

found that

the

items from the

pessimism

and

internal attribution

scales

loaded

on a

single

factor. This raises

questions

about

the

multi

dimensionality

of

the

measure,

if not

the

construct.

Similar

problems

exist

with the

two-dimensional

framework

proposed by

Vance

et

al.

(1996).

Wanous

et

al.

(2000)

noted

that their

investigation

of

cynicism

about

organizational

change

was

preliminary,

and cautioned that further

refinements

in measurement

might

be

required.

In

the

present research,

we

took

up

that

challenge

and

attempted

to

avoid

the

potential problems

described

above. Unlike others

(e.g.,

Abraham, 2000;

Vance

et

al.,

1996;

Wanous

et

al.,

2000)

who measured

cynicism

about

organizational

change

in

general,

our

objective

was

to

develop

a measure

of

cynicism

about

a

specific

organizational change

initiative

(as

well

as

more

general

forms

of

cynicism).

In

doing

so,

we

used

existing

definitions of

cynicism

to

identify

what

we

considered

to

be the

core

essence

of

cynicism, thereby

avoiding

the

potential problems

associated

with

overly complex

con

structs

that

vary

across

contexts.

Toward

a

Unifying Definition of Cynicism

Although

we

agree

with Andersson

(1996)

and

Dean

et

al.

(1998)

that

cynicism

has

cognitive,

affective,

and

behavioral

components,

in this

preliminary

attempt

to

provide

a

unifying

definition,

we

focused

on

the

cognitive component

of

the

attitude. That

is,

our

objective

was

to

address

disagreements

about the

beliefs

that

characterize

cynicism,

and how

these beliefs diner from

those

associated with

related

constructs

(e.g.,

skepticism,

trust).

Admittedly,

there

is also

considerable

variability

in

descriptions

of

the

affect that

accompanies

these beliefs.

However,

based

on

the

rationale

that

cognition

plays

a

major

role

in

shaping

the

labels

we

attach

to

emotional

states

(Schachter

&

Singer,

1962),

we

chose

to

focus

first

on

the

cognitive component.

Consistent

with

attitude research in

general,

we

treat

the behavioral

component

as a

dependent

variable

to

be

predicted

from

measures

of

the

cognitive

and affective

components.

Common to Andersson's

(1996)

and Dean

and

colleagues'

(1998)

general

definitions of

cynicism

is

the belief

that

others

lack

integrity

and

cannot

be

trusted.

This

is

consistent

with

the Oxford

English

Dictionary

(OED)

definition

of

a

cynic

as

one

who

shows a

disposition

to

disbelieve


9/32

436 JOURNAL OF

BUSINESS

AND

PSYCHOLOGY

in

the

sincerity

or

goodness

of

human

motives and actions.

Conse

quently,

for

purposes

of

our

research,

we

defined the

cognitive

component

of

cynicism

as

disbelief of

another's

stated

or

implied

motives

for

a

decision

or

action.

Our

emphasis

on

motives

is

intended

to

distinguish

cynicism

from

related

constructs,

most

notably skepticism

(see

below).

This definition

of

cynicism

can

be

applied

broadly

(e.g.,

to

people

in

general)

or

narrowly

(e.g.,

to

a

particular

person

in

a

specific

situation)

and, therefore,

can

guide

measure

development

regardless

of

context. In

the

present

research,

our

primary

focus

was on

change-specific cynicism

as

a

predictor

of

employee

resistance,

but

we

also

developed

(or

adapted)

measures

of

cynicism

about

people

in

general,

and about

management,

for

purposes

of

demonstrating

their distinction

from

change-specific

cynicism.

The

definitions

used

to

guide

the

development

of these

measures

were as

follows:

change-specific

cynicism

is

a

disbelief of

management's

stated

or

implied

motives

for

a

specific organizational change;

management

cynicism

is

a

disbelief

in

management's

stated

or

implied

motives for deci

sions

or

actions in

general;

and

dispositional

cynicism

is

a

disbelief

in the

stated

or

implied

motives

of

people

in

general

for their

decisions

or

actions.

Distinguishing

Cynicism

from

Related Constructs

One

construct

with which

cynicism

is

easily

confused

is

skepticism.

Although

some

authors

(e.g.,

Kanter &

Mirvis,

1989;

Reichers

et

al.,

1997)

specifically attempted

to

distinguish

the two

constructs,

there

is,

as

yet,

no

consensus

on

how

they

differ. Kanter

and Mirvis

(1989)

described

skeptics

as

doubting

the substance

of

communications,

but

willing

to be

convinced

by

deeds.

In

contrast,

they

suggested

that

cynics

not

only

doubt

the substance

of

a

communication,

but

also the

motives

behind

it.

Thus,

the

two constructs

were seen as

qualitatively

different?only

cynicism

involved doubts about

motives. Reichers

et al.

(1997)

described

skeptics

as

doubting

the

likelihood

of

success

while still

being reasonably hopeful

that

positive

change

will

occur.

Cynics

were

viewed

as

much less

opti

mistic

about

the

success

of

change

because

of

a

history

of

repeated

failure.

Thus,

in this

case,

cynicism

and

skepticism

were

seen as

qualitatively

similar,

but

differed

in terms

of the

degree

of

optimism

about

success.

Given

this

disagreement,

we

again

turned

to

the OED.

According

to

the

OED,

skepticism

is

a

disposition

to

doubt

or

incredulity

in

general.

Unlike

cynicism,

there

is

no

specific

focus

on

motives.

Therefore,

we

reasoned

that,

in

a

change

context,

skepticism

is

likely

to

manifest itself

in

more

general

doubts

about

whether

a

change

will be effective.

Hence,

we

define

change-specific

skepticism

as

doubt

about the

viability

of

a

change for

the

attainment

of

its

stated

objective.

Note

that the

distinction

we are

making

here

is closer

to

that

made

by

Kanter and

Mirvis

(1989)

than

by

Reichers

et

al.

(1997).

Indeed,

we

argue

that

the latter's


10/32

DAVID

J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,


definition

of

cynicism

corresponds

more

closely

to

skepticism

than

to

cynicism

as

we

have defined them.

If

cynicism

and

skepticism

about

an

organizational

change truly

involve

different

beliefs,

they

should

develop

differently

(i.e.,

have

different

personal

and situational

antecedents).

If

so,

we

should be

able

to

detect

differences

in their

correlations

with

measures

of

these

ante

cedents.

For

example, change-specific cynicism

should relate

more

strongly

than

skepticism

to

general

forms

of

cynicism (e.g.,

people

in

general;

management),

and

the

perceived adequacy

of

management's

attempt

to

communicate

the

reasons

for

the

change.

In

contrast,

skepticism

should

relate

more

strongly

to

perception

of

management's

competence,

in

general

and

as

it

pertains

to

the

implementation

of the

change.

Another

construct with which both

cynicism

and

skepticism

might

be

confused

is

trust.

Given

the

recent

resurgence

of

interest

in

this

construct

(e.g.,

see

Rousseau, Sitkin,

Burt,

&

Camerer, 1998),

including

its

relevance

to

organizational

change

(e.g.,

Mishra &

Spreitzer,

1998;

Morrison

&

Robinson,

1997),

it

is

important

to

consider

how trust

differs

from

cynicism

and

skepticism.

Trust has

also

been

defined

in

various

ways

and there has

yet

to

emerge

a

universal

conceptualization

and

method of measurement

(Mayer,

Davis,

&

Schoorman,

1995;

Rousseau

et

al.,

1998).

Despite

this lack

of

consensus,

however,

in

their review of

definitions,

Mayer

et

al.

noted

that

an

element

common

to most

con

ceptualizations

is

a

willingness

to

assume

risk

(p.

724).

That

is,

those

who trust

are

willing

to make

themselves vulnerable

to

the

potential

negative

consequences

resulting

from the decisions

or

actions

of

another.

Admittedly, cynicism

and

skepticism

about

an

organizational

change,

as

we

defined

them,

are

likely

to

be

related

to

trust-it is

unlikely

that

one

would

willingly

make oneself vulnerable

to

the

actions

of

another

if

his/her

motives

were

in

question,

or

the action

was

expected

to

fail.

Indeed,

if

one

considers the

major

antecedents

of

trust

identified

by Mayer

et al.

(1995)

integrity,

benevolence,

and

ability-it

is

easy

to

see

how

they might

also

contribute to

cynicism

and

skepticism

in

a

change

context.

Integrity

(adherence

to

an

acceptable

set

of

principles)

and benevolence

(concern

for

the

individual's

well-being),

in

particular, might

correlate

negatively

with

cynicism.

Ability

(domain-specific

skills and

competence)

should be

nega

tively

related

to

skepticism.

Nevertheless,

despite sharing

some

anteced

ents in

common

with

trust,

we

argue

that

neither

cynicism

nor

skepticism

is

synonymous

with

trust. If

for

no

other

reason,

we

believe

that,

because

either

cynicism

or

skepticism

alone would

be sufficient to

cause

mistrust,

neither

can

be

considered

redundant with trust.

Cynicism

as

a

Predictor

of

Intent

to

Resist

Organizational Change

Although

the successful

implementation

of

organizational

changes

has

become

an

increasingly important

issue,

until

recently

the

majority


11/32

438 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

of

change

paradigms

have

been

characterized

by

a

macro-systems

approach

(Judge,

Thoreson, Pucik,

&

Welbourne,

1999).

However,

over

the last

decade there has

been

a

growing emphasis

on

the

importance

of

individual

reactions

to

organizational change (e.g., Aktouf, 1992; Bray,

1994;

Judge

et

al., 1999;

Wanberg

&

Ba?as,

2000).

Moreover,

employee

support

for

organizational

change

has been

suggested

as a

necessary

condition for the

success

for

a

change

(Piderit,

2000).

Consistent with

this

increasing

emphasis

on

individual-level

variables,

cynicism

has

re

ceived

some

attention,

albeit

limited,

as

a

potential

antecedent for

re

sistance

to


(Reichers

et

al., 1997;

Wanous

et

al.,

2000).

Although

research

by

Reichers

et

al.

(1997)

and

Wanous

et

al.

(2000)

investigated cynicism

about


in

general, they

did

not

examine

employee cynicism

about

a

specific

change.

Moreover,

as

noted

previously,

the

conceptualization

of

cynicism

used

by

Reicher

et al.

corresponds

more

closely

with

our

conceptualization

of

skepticism

(i.e.,

doubts

about

the

viability

of

the

change).

Thus,

there is

a

paucity

of

research

examining

the

link

between

employee's

perceptions

of

man

agement's

motives

for

a

change

initiative and

their level of

compliance

with the

change.

In the

current

investigation,

we

propose

that

change-specific

cyni

cism

will

predict

intentions

to

resist

change.

That

is, employees

who

believe

that

management

is

engaging

in

a

change

for

reasons

other than

those stated

(or

implied)

will be

unwilling

to

comply

with

management's

request

to

change

their

behavior. This

emphasis

on

change-specific

cynicism

is

consistent

with

attitudinal

research which

specifies

that

optimal

prediction

is

obtained when

the

predictor

and criterion

are

comparable

in

terms

of their

specificity

(Ajzen

&

Fishbein, 1977;

Eagly

&

Chaiken,

1993).

The

validity

of this

approach

was

recently

illustrated

in

the

context of


where

it

was

discovered

that,

al

though organizational

commitment

was a

good predictor

of

intent

to

re

sist

an

organizational

change, optimal

prediction

was

obtained

by

using

change-specific

commitment

(Herscovitch

&

Meyer,

2002).

Consequently,

we

believe

change-specific

constructs

(e.g., change-specific

cynicism,

skepticism)

will

be

better

predictors

than

constructs

with

a more

general

focus

(e.g., management-specific

cynicism,

trust).

Purpose

and

Hypotheses

Our

primary objectives

in

this research

were

to

provide

a

general

definition

of

cynicism,

and

to

use

this

definition

as

a

guide

to

mea

sure

development

and research

within

the

context of

organizational

change.

In

light

of the

forgoing

discussion,

we

tested

the

following

hypotheses.


12/32

DAVID J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,

AND

LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

439

Hypothesis

1:

Cynicism

about

an

organizational

change

is distin

guishable

from

skepticism

about the

change,

from

more

general

forms

of

cynicism

(disposition

and

management),

and

from

trust in

management.

Hypothesis

2:

Cynicism

and

skepticism

about

an

organizational

change

will

have different antecedents.

Cynicism

will

be

more

strongly

related

to

dispositional

and

management cynicism,

to

perceptions

of

management's integrity

and

benevolence,

and

to

the

amount of communication about

the

reasons

for

the

change,

whereas

skepticism

will be

more

strongly

related

to

perception

of

management's

ability

and

competence (general

and

change

specific).

Hypothesis

3:

Cynicism

and

skepticism

about

an

organizational

change

will

contribute

uniquely

to

the

prediction

of intention

to

re

sist

a

specific organizational change,

even

with

more

general

forms

of

cynicism

and

trust in

management

controlled.

We

conducted

two

primary

studies.

Study

1-a

cross-sectional

study

involving

employees

from

various

organizations

undergoing change-was

conducted

to test

all three of

our

hypotheses.

Study

2-a

longitudinal

study conducted with employees in an organization undergoing

restructuring

and culture

change-was

used

to

provide

a

further

test of

Hypotheses

2

and 3. Before

conducting

our

primary

studies,

however,

we

conducted

two

laboratory

studies

as

a

first

stage

in

the

development

of

measures

of


and

skepticism.

To

conserve

space,

these

studies,

and the

relevant

results,

are

summarized

briefly

below.

PILOT RESEARCH

In

the first

pilot study,

we

used the construct definitions above

to

guide

the

generation

of

eight

change-specific

cynicism

items

and

seven

skepticism

items based

on

the scale

development suggestions

of Hinkin

(1998),

Jackson

(1979),

and

Schwab

(1980).

A

sample change-specific

cynicism

item is

Management

is

trying

to

hide

the

reason

for

this

change.

A

sample

skepticism

item is I

have doubts that this

change

will

achieve

its

objective.

We then

created

vignettes

describing

an

employee

with

high

or

low

cynicism

(i.e.,

disbelief

in

motives)

and

high

or

low

skepticism (i.e., doubt about viability) concerning

an

impending organi

zational

change. Undergraduate

students

(N

=

122)

read these

vignettes

and

responded

to

the

items

as

they

believed the

employee

would. A

principal

axis factor

analysis

with oblimin rotation revealed

two

factors

corresponding

to

cynicism

and

skepticism,

respectively.

All items had


13/32

440

JOURNAL OF

BUSINESS

AND

PSYCHOLOGY

their

highest loading

on

the

appropriate

factor. The

two

factors

accounted for 74.8%

of

the

variance,

and the correlation between

the

factors

was

.43.

The

alpha

coefficients

for

unit-weighted

cynicism

and

skepticism

scales

were

.96 and

.93, respectively.

To

determine

whether

the

scale

scores were

influenced

appropriately

by

the

manipulations,

we

conducted

2

(high

vs.

low

cynicism)

x

2

(high

vs.

low

skepticism)

ANOVAs. As

expected,

these

analyses

revealed

strong

main effects of the

cynicism manipulation

on

the

cynicism

scale, F(l,

118)

=

247.7,

p

<

.01,

if

=

.65,

and of

the

skepticism

manipulation

on

the

skepticism

scale, F(l,

118)

=

170.1,

p

<

.01,

n2

=

.56.

Although

there

were

also

significant

cross-over

effects,

they

were

considerably

weaker.

These

findings,

therefore,

provide

some

evidence

for the discriminant

validity

of

the

two

scales.

In

the second

pilot

study,

we

assessed the

validity

of

single-item

measures

of


( In

your

opinion,

how

likely

is it

that

management

told

you

the

true

reason(s)

for

the

change? )

and

skepticism

( In

your

opinion,

how

likely

is it that the

change

will

achieve

its

objective

as

stated

by

management? )

to

be used in

Study

2

(see

bfelow

for

rationale).

To

determine

whether the

single-item

measures

captured

meaningful

variance

in

the

multi-item

measures,

we

repeated

the

fore

going

investigation

with

a

sample

of

171

undergraduate

students.

Par

ticipants read vignettes and responded to the both the multi-item and

single-item

measures.

Results

for the multi-item

measures

were

similar

to

those described above.

The

2x2 ANOVAs conducted

on

the

single

item

measures

revealed

strong

main effects

of the

cynicism manipulation

on

the

cynicism

item,

F(l,

167)

=

147.5,

p

<

.01,

n2

=

.47,

and of the

skepticism manipulation

on

the

skepticism

item, F(l,

167)

=

97.9,

p

<

.01,

n2

=

.37,

as

expected. Again,

although

there

were

significant

crossover

effects,

they

were

considerably

weaker. The

single-item

cyni

cism

and

skepticism

measures

both correlated

significantly

with the

appropriate multi-item scales (r

=

.83 and .72, p < .01, respectively),

suggesting

that the

meaningful

variance

in

the

single-

and

multi-item

measures

is

largely overlapping.

STUDY

1

Participants

and Procedure

Participants

were

65

individuals

(31

men,

33

women,

1

not

declared)

employed at least 20 hours per week in various organizations. They were

recruited

from

university

courses

(n

=

20),

through

ads directed

toward

the

university community

(n

=

33),

and

through

a

personal

contact in

a

small

organization

(n

=

12).

The

average

age

of

participants

was


14/32

DAVID J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,

AND

LARYSSA

TOPOLNYTSKY

441

33.8

years,

and

the

average

tenure

was

7.4

years.

Approximately

70% of

respondents

were

employed

full

time.

Participants

completed

a

survey

in

which

they

were

asked

to

think of

a

single

recent

change, preferably

one

which is

pending

or

in

progress,

and

to

respond

to

a

series

of

questions pertaining

to

their

perceptions

of,

and

reactions

to,

the

change.

To

ensure

that the

various

aspects

of each

change

were

salient

to

participants

they

were

asked

to

describe

the

nature of the

change,

including

any

benefits

or

difficulties

that

could

arise

from

it,

using

an

open-ended

response

format.

Typical

changes

described

by participants

included

mergers,

acquisitions,

downsizing,

budget

reductions,

job

restructuring,

organizational

restructuring,

public

to

private

sector

transitions,

and the

acquisition

of

new

product

lines.

Following

the

open

ended

response questions, participants completed

the

change-relevant

scales

described below.

Measures

The

survey

included the multi-item

measures

of

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

tested

in

the

pilot

studies.

Additional

measures,

most

developed

for this

study,

are

described below.

All used

a

Likert-type

response

format

(1

=

strongly

disagree

to 7

=

strongly

agree).

Cynicism concerning management and people in general. Separate five

item

measures were

developed

to

assess

cynicism concerning people

in

general

(dispositional

cynicism)

and

cynicism

about

management

(man

agement

cynicism).

The

dispositional

cynicism

measure

consisted

of

two

items

adapted

from

the

MMPI

Cynicism

subscale

(Cook

&

Medley,

1954),

one

item

adapted

from the

Kanter

and Mirvis

(1989)

scale,

and

two

items

written

by

the authors.

A

sample

item is

I

find that

most

people disguise

their

true

motives for

doing things.

We

wrote all

five

items

in

the

management cynicism

scale

based

on

the definition

provided

earlier.

A

sample item is I often question the motives of management in this

organization.

The Cronbach

alphas

for

these

measures

were

.78 and

.83,

respectively.

Trust

in

Management.

We

used the definition

provided

by Mayer

et

al.

(1995)

as a

guide

in

writing

five items

to

assess

trust

in

management.

A

sample

item

is

Even if

a

bad

decision

could

have

very

negative

conse

quences

for

me,

I

would

trust

management's

judgment.

The

Cronbach

alpha

for this

measure was

.85.

Intention toResist Change. We wrote three items to measure employees'

intention to

resist the

specific organizational change they

described

in

the

survey.

A

sample

item is

I will

resist

any

efforts

to

impose

this

change.

The

Cronbach

alpha

was

.78.


15/32

442 JOURNAL

OF BUSINESS

AND

PSYCHOLOGY

Antecedent Variables.

In addition

to

the

dispositional

and

management

cynicism

measures

(described

above),

we

developed

measures

of

variables

hypothesized

to

be

likely

antecedents

of

cynicism

and

skepticism.

Specif

ically,

we

developed

a measure

of communication

as an

antecedent

of

cynicism,

and

measures

of

management

competence

(general

and

change

specific)

as

antecedents

of

skepticism.

We

wrote three items

to

measure

the

extent to which

management

communicated the

reason

for

the

change

(e.g., Management

has

clearly

explained

its

reason

for

implementing

this

change. ),

five

items

to

measure

perceptions

of overall

management

com

petence

(e.g.,

I

have confidence

in

the decisions

made

by

the

management

of

this

organization. ),

and

six

items

to

measure

perceptions

of

manage

ment's

competence

to

implement

the

change

(e.g.,

I

don't

think

manage

ment has what it takes to make this change work [reverse keyed]). The

Cronbach

alphas

for

these

measures

were

.88,

.86 and

.93,

respectively.

RESULTS

The

means,

standard

deviations,

reliabilities

and correlations

for

all

of

the

study

variables

are

reported

in

Table

2.

Hypothesis

1

To test the

hypothesis

that

change-specific

cynicism

is

distinguish

able

from

skepticism

about

the

change,

from

more

general

forms of

cyn

icism,

and from

trust

in

management,

we

conducted

a

confirmatory

factor

analyses

(CFA)

using

AMOS

4

(Arbuckle,

1999).

Maximum

likelihood

estimation

procedures

were

used,

and fit

was

assessed

using

the Com

parative

Fit

Index

(CFI;

Bentler

1990),

and the

Root Mean

Squared

Error

of

Approximation

(RMSEA;

Steiger,

1990).

The

CFI

compares

the fit of the

hypothesized model to that of a null model (i.e., no relations among the

variables),

and values

greater

than

.90 indicate

a

good

fit.

The RMSEA

is

an

absolute

measure

of

fit

adjusted

for the

number

of

parameters

to

be

estimated.

RMSEA values

less

than .05 indicate

good

fit,

values between

.05

and

.08

moderate

fit,

values

between

.08 and

.10

mediocre

fit,

and

values

greater

than .10

poor

fit

(Browne

&

Cudeck,

1993).

We

first assessed

the

fit

of

a

model

with latent

variables

corre

sponding

to the five

constructs under

investigation.

Scale

items served

as

indicators

and all latent

variables

were

allowed

to

correlate.

This

model

provided

a

reasonably good fit to the data (X2 [395]

=

576.34, p

<

.001;

CFI

=

.957;

RMSEA

=

.085).

The

latent

variables

were

all

significantly

correlated.

Standardized

parameter

estimates

for

items in the

five-factor

model

are

presented

in

Table 3. Correlations

among

the

latent

variables

are

presented

in

Table

4.


16/32

Table

2

Means,

Standard

Deviations,

Reliabilities

and

Correlations

for

Study

1

Mean

SD

1.

Change-specific cynicism

2.99

1.42

(.94)

2.

Skepticism

3.68 1.61

.47**

(.93)

3.

Dispositional cynicism

3.44 1.22

.22

.

26*

(.78)

4.

Management

cynicism

4.27

1.47 .54**

.50**

.24

5.

Trust

in

management

3.67 1.22

-.30*

-.54**

-.21

6.

Communication 5.52 1.28

-.53** -.30* -.14

7.

General

competence

4.42

1.35

-.45**

-.55**

-.25*

8.

Change

competence

4.88

1.45

-.35*

-.75**

-.21

9.

Intention

to

resist 2.42

1.18 .49**

.67**

.18

(.83)

-.66**

-.29*

?.71**

-.59**

.34**

(.81)

.11

.79**

.56**

-.37**

-.

Note.

Estimates of

each

scale's

internal

consistency

(Cronbach's

Alpha)

are

presented

on

the

diagonal

*p


17/32


18/32

DAVID

J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,

AND

LARYSSA

TOPOLNYTSKY

445

_Table

3

(Continued)_

4. When it

comes

to

making

decisions that affect

me,

I have

as

much

or

794

more

faith

in

management's judgment

as

I

would

in

my

own

5. Even if

a

bad decision could have

very

negative

consequences

for

me,

I

.728

would trust management's judgment

Note.

All

parameter

estimates

are

statistically

significant (p

>

.05).

Parameters

for factors

not

indicated

were

set to

zero.

(R)

indicates

a

reverse-keyed

item,

indicates

adapted

from

Cook and

Medley

(1954).

indicates

adapted

from

a

Kanter

and

Mirvis

(1989)

item.

Table

4

Correlations

Among

the Latent Variables

in

the Five-Factor Model

Latent Variable

12 3

1.

Change-specific cynicism

2.

Skepticism

.488

3.

Dispositional

cynicism

.280

.364

4.

Management cynicism

.629

.631

5.

Trust

in

management

-.339

-.658

.359

-.221 -.767

Note.

N

=

65.

Table

5

Multiple

Regression

Analyses Predicting

Change-specific

Cynicism

and

Skepticism

in

Study

1

Criterion

Variable

Predictors

Change-specific

Cynicism

Skepticism

Dispositional cynicism

Management cynicism

Communication

General

competence

Change competence

R2

Adjusted

R2

.26

.50**

-.30**

-.55**

-.75**

Note.

Regression

coefficients

are

standardized.

N

-

*p<

.05,

**p

<

.01.

65.

To

provide

a

more

direct

test

of the

specific predictions

in

Hypothesis

1,

we

systematically

combined

scales

to

form

single

latent variables.

In

all

cases,

these

combinations

resulted

in

a

significant

reduction

in fit

(i.e.,


19/32

446 JOURNAL

OF

BUSINESS

AND

PSYCHOLOGY

the

change

in

X2

values

were

significant;

Bentler &

Bonnet,

1980).

Al

though

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

correlated .48

in the five

factor

model,

a

model

combining

the two

latent

variables

produced

a

poor

fit to

the

data

(X2

[399]

=

837.43,

p

<

.001;

CFI

=

.895;

RMSEA

=

.131;

AX2

[4]

=

261.09, p

<

.001).

Similarly,

models

combining

change-specific

cynicism

with

dispositional

cynicism

(X2

[399]

=

650.53, p

<

.001;

CFI

=

.940;

RMSEA

=

.099;

AX2

[4]

=

74.19,

p

<

.001),

management

cynicism

(X2

[399]

=

654.53,

p

<

.001;

CFI

=

.939;

RMSEA

=

.100;

AX2

[4]

=

78.19, p

<

.001),

and trust

in

management

(X2

[399]

=

690.99,

p

<

.001;

CFI

=

.930;

RMSEA

=

.107;

AX2

[4]

=

114.60,

p

<

.01),

all

fit

the

data less

well.

Only

in

the

case

where

we

combined

management

cynicism

and

trust in

management

did

the

fit

approximate

that

for

the

five-factor model

(X2

[399]

=

604.59,

p

<

.001;

CFI

=

.951;

RMSEA

=

.090;

AX2

[4]

=

28.25,

p

<

.01).

Note

that these

two

factors

correlated

-.77 in

the

five-factor

model.

Thus,

Hypothesis

1

is

supported.

Hypothesis

2

To test the

hypothesis

that

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

would

have

different

antecedents,

we

conducted

multiple regression

analyses

in

which

we

entered

dispositional

cynicism,

management

cyn

icism, communication,

general

management

competence,

and

change

competence

as

predictors.

The

results

are

reported

in

Table 5.

Together,

Table 6

Multiple Regression

Analyses

Predicting

Intention

To

Resist

in

Study

1

Predictor

?

r

Step

1

Dispositional

cynicism

.09

.18

Management cynicism

.16

.34**

Trust in management -.23 -.37**

R2

.15*

Adjusted

R2

.10*

Step

2

Dispositional

cynicism

-.01

.18

Management cynicism

Trust

in

management

Change-specific

cynicism

Skepticism

R2

.49**

Adjusted R2 .44**

A?2

.34**

Note.

Regression

coefficients

are

standardized.

N

=

65.

*

p

<

.05,

**

p

<

.01.

12

.34**

06

-.37**

27*

.49**

57**

.67**


20/32

DAVID J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,

AND

LARYSSA TOPOLNYTSKY

447

the

predictors

accounted

for

44%

of the

variance

in

change-specific

cyn

icism and 58%

of

the variance

in

skepticism.

As

expected,

management

cynicism

and

communication

each accounted for

significant

variance

in

change-specific cynicism,

and

change competence

accounted for

unique

variance

in

skepticism.

Contrary

to

expectation, dispositional cynicism

did

not

relate

significantly

to

change-specific

cynicism. Although

general

competence

correlated

significantly

with

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism,

it

did

not account

for

unique

variance

in

either. Conse

quently,

Hypothesis

2

is

only partially

supported.

Hypothesis

3

To test

the

hypothesis

that


and

skepticism

would

contribute

uniquely

to

the

prediction

of

intention

to

resist

an

organizational

change,

even

with

more

general

forms of

cynicism

and

trust in

management

controlled,

we

conducted hierarchical

multiple

regression

analyses

with

intention

to

resist

the

change

as

the

dependent

variable. We

entered

dispositional

cynicism,

management

cynicism,

and

trust in

management

as

predictors

in

Step

1

of the

analysis,

and

then

entered

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

in

Step

2.

The

results

are

reported

in

Table 6.

The

broad

cynicism

and

trust

measures

ac

counted for 15% of

the

variance

in

intention

to

resist.

When

entered

in

Step

2,

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

together

accounted

for

an

additional

34% of

the

variance,

and each

accounted

for

a

unique

portion

of the

variance

in

the

criterion.

Thus,

Hypothesis

3 is

supported.

STUDY

2

This

study

was

part

of

a

larger

research

project

conducted

with

a

moderate-sized

organization

in

the

energy

sector.

The

organization

was

undergoing

restructuring

and culture

transformation

(from

a

bureau

cracy

to

a

profit-oriented

and

innovative

company)

with

the

objective

of

remaining

competitive

in

a

newly

deregulated

environment.

Participants

and

Data

Collection Procedures

Data

were

collected

through

the

administration of

surveys

at

two

points

in

time. The

first

survey

was

sent

through

inter-office mail

just

prior

to

the official

launch of the

change;

the

second

survey

was

admin

istered

8

months

later.

A

self-report

measure

of

resistance

to the

change

was

obtained

on

both

surveys;

measures

of the

antecedent

variables and

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

were

included

only

in the

first

survey.

Employees

were

given

2

weeks

to

return

the

surveys,

and


21/32

448

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

reminders

were

e-mailed

and

posted

on

bulletin

boards

a

few

days

before

the

deadline for

return.

On both

occasions,

all

employees

in the

company

(just

over

1,

100)

were

invited

to

participate.

At

Time

1,

712

(67%)

employees completed

the

surveys,

and at Time

2,

637

(59%)

responded.

Surveys

were

completed

anonymously

but

employees

used

self-generated

code

numbers

to

allow

us

to

match

responses

on

the

two

occasions. For

present

purposes,

data

obtained

from

the

executive

group

(N

=

11)

involved

in

planning

and

overseeing

the

change

initiative

were

not

included

in

the

analyses.

Within-time

analyses

were

conducted

on

the

Time

1

data

from all

of the

remaining respondents,

and

time-lagged

analyses

were

conducted

using

the data from those

who

responded

to

both

surveys

(N

=

329).

At Time

1,

33% of

respondents

were

male,

77%

worked

full

time,

11%

were

managers

with direct

reports,

21%

were

managers

without direct

reports,

and 67%

were

frontline

workers.

In

the

longitudinal sample,

33% of

respondents

were

male,

78%

worked full

time,

14%

were

managers

with

direct

reports,

24%

were

managers

without

direct

reports,

and

62%

were

frontline workers.

Measures

Change-specific Cynicism

and

Skepticism.

We measured

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

at

Time

1

using

the

single-item

measures

in

cluded

in the

pilot

research described

earlier.

Responses

were

made

on a

5-point

scale

(strongly

agree

to

strongly disagree),

with

higher

values

indicating

greater

cynicism

and

skepticism.

Recall that

these

items

were

found

to

correlate

highly

with

the multi-item

measures

used

in

Study

1.

We

were

required

to

use

the

single-item

measures

because of

manage

ment

concerns over

survey

length.

Antecedent

Variables.

In the Time

1

survey,

we

included

shortened

versions of

Mayer

and

Davis's

(1999)

ability,

benevolence,

and

integrity

scales to assess employees' perceptions of top management. Four items

were

included

to

measure

ability

(e.g., Top

management

is

very

capable

of

performing

its

job. ),

four items

to

measure

benevolence

(e.g.,

Top

management

is

very

concerned about

my

welfare. ),

and six items

to

measure

integrity

(e.g., Top

management

has

a

strong

sense

of

jus

tice. ).

The

Cronbach

alphas

for

these scales

were

.86,

.91,

and

.86,

respectively.

We

also

included

an

author-developed

three-item

measure

of communication

(e.g.,

Employees

were

given

a

detailed

explanation

for

[why

the

change

was

made].

The

Cronbach

alpha

for this scale

was

.75.

For all four measures, responses were made on 5-point scales

(1

=

strongly disagree;

5

=

strongly agree).

Self-reported

support

(vs. resistance)

for

the

change.

Employees'

level of

support/resistance

for

the

change

was

assessed

using

a

101-point


22/32

DAVID

J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,


Table 7

Means,

Standard

Deviations,

Reliabilities

and

Correlations

for

Study

2

Variables

Mean

SD 5 7 8

1.

Change-specific

cynicism

3.12 1.04

(

2.

Skepticism

3.

Ability

4. Benevolence

5.

Integrity

6.

Communication

7. Time

1

resistance

8. Time 2

resistance

3.26

2.95

2.19

2.69

3.15

0.84

0.82

0.79

0.76

0.85

29.93 15.90

27.46

15.02

90)

39**

(.69)

45**

-.

41**

48**

-.

47**

34*

23**

50**

(.86)

43** .67**

(.91)

46**

.78** .79**

(.86)

36**

.47** .39** .44**

(.75)

32**

_

29** _.3l**

-.33** -.24**

-

20**

?

24**

?

18**

?

21**

?

15**

42**

Note. Estimates

of

each

scales

internal

consistency

(Cronbach's

Alpha)

are

presented

on

the

diagonal

in

parentheses.

Reliabilities

of

the

single-item change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism

items

were

estimated

from

pilot

study

data

using

procedures

described

by

Wa

nous,

Reichers,

and

Hudy

(1997).

Dashes indicate

we were

unable

to

calculate

the

reliability

estimate

for

a

single-item

variable.

N

=

657-669

for Time

1

variables

and

329

for Time 2

Resistance.

*

p<

.05,

**p

<

.01.

behavioral

continuum

developed by

Herscovitch

and

Meyer

(2002).

The

continuum reflects a range of change-relevant behaviors. Points along

the

continuum

were

labeled,

from

left

to

right,

active

resistance,

passive

resistance,

compliance,

cooperation,

and

championing.

A

written

description

of

each of the anchor

points

was

provided.

Active resistance

was

defined

as

demonstrating

extreme

opposition

in

response

to

a

change.. .by

engaging

in overt

behaviors

that

are

intended

to

ensure

that

Table

8

Multiple

Regression

Analyses Predicting Change-specific Cynicism

and

Skepticism

in

Study

2

Criterion Variable

Predictors

Change-specific

Cynicism

Skepticism

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Communication

R2

Adjusted

R2

.08

.05

24**

-.31**

.32**

.31**

-.45**

-.41**

-.48**

?.47**

-.30**

-.13*

-.05

-.14**

.28**

.28**

-.50**

-.43**

-.46**

-.36**

Note. All

variables

were

measured

at

Time

1.

Regression

coefficients

are

standardized.

N

=

659.

*

p

<

.05,

**

p

<

.01.


23/32

450

JOURNAL

OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

the

change

fails.

Passive

resistance

was

defined

as

demonstrating

moderate

opposition

in

response

to

a

change...

by engaging

in

more

covert

or

subtle behaviors aimed

at

preventing

the

success

of the

change. Compliance

was

defined

as

demonstrating

minimum

support

for

a

change.

A

compliant

individual

goes

along

with the

change,

but

does

so

almost

reluctantly.

Cooperation

was

defined

as

demonstrating

moderate

support

for the

change.

A

cooperating

individual

exerts

effort

when it

comes

to the

change,

goes

along

with the

spirit

of the

change,

and

is

prepared

to

make modest

sacrifices.

Finally,

championing

was

defined

as

demonstrating

extreme

enthusiasm

for

a

change.

The individual is

willing

to

go

above

and

beyond

what

is

technically required

of him/her

when it

comes

to

the

change.

For

purposes

of this

study,

the

scale

was

scored

so

that

high

values reflect less

support,

or

higher

levels of

resis

tance.

RESULTS

Means,

standard

deviations,

reliabilities,

and correlations

among

the

study

variables

are

reported

in Table 7.

Hypothesis 2

Ability,

benevolence,

integrity

and communication

served

as

ante

cedent variables

in

our

test of

Hypothesis

2.

Benevolence,

integrity,

and

communication

were

expected

to relate

more

strongly

to

change-specific

cynicism,

whereas

ability

was

expected

to

relate

more

strongly

to

skep

ticism. We tested this

hypothesis

by

including

all four variables

as

pre

dictors

in

regression analyses.

The results

are

reported

in

Table

8.

As

a

group,

the

predictors

accounted

for 31% of the variance

in

change-specific

cynicism; integrity

and

communication accounted for

unique

variance,

as

expected,

but benevolence

did

not.

The

same

predictors

accounted

for

27%

of the variance

in

skepticism.

Although ability

had the

strongest

relation,

as

expected,

communication

and benevolence

also accounted

for

unique

variance

in

skepticism.

Thus,

Hypothesis

2

is

only partially

supported?the

patterns

of relations

with the antecedents

differed

for

change-specific

cynicism

and

skepticism,

but

were

not

exactly

as

pre

dicted.

Hypothesis 3

We

did

not

measure

dispositional

cynicism

or

management

cynicism

in this

study

and

were

therefore

unable

to

test

Hypothesis

3 in its

entirety.

Moreover,

we

did

not

measure

trust

directly.

Rather,

we


24/32

DAVID

J.

STANLEY,

JOHN

P.

MEYER,

AND

LARYSSA

TOPOLNYTSKY

451

Table

9

Multiple

Regression

Analyses

Predicting

Resistance Behavior

in

Study

2

Criterion

VariableSelf-reported

Self-reported

Resistance

Behavior

Time

1

Resistance

Behavior

Time 2

Predictors

Step

1

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

R2

Adjusted

R2

Step

2

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Change-specific

cynicism

Skepticism

R2

Adjusted

R2

AR2

09

12

16*

11**

^^**

00

08

09

21**

17**

18**

17**

06**

-.29**

-.31**

-.33**

-.29**

-.31**

-.33**

34**

32**

-.19*

-.00

-.07

.06

.05

-.15

.02

-.01

.15**

-.06

.08**

.07**

.02*

..24**

-.18**

-.21**

.24**

-.18**

-.21**

.23**

.20**

Note.

All

predictor

variables

were

measured at Time

1.

Regression

coefficients

are

stan

dardized. N

=

656 for

analyses

predicting

the

criterion

at

Time

1

and

involving

Time

1

resistance behavior and 327 for

analyses

predicting

the criterion at Time 2.

*p

<

.05,

**p

<

.01.

measured

the

three

antecedents

of

trust

identified

by Mayer

et

al.

(1995):

ability,

benevolence,

and

integrity. Assuming

that

these

variables,

in

combination,

serve as a

proxy

for

trust,

we

used

a

hierarchical

multiple

regression

analysis

to

test

the

hypothesis

that


and skepticism would each account for unique variance in the Times 1

and

2

resistance

measures

with

ability,

benevolence,

and

integrity

con

trolled

(i.e.,

entered

in

Step

1

of

the

analysis).

The results

are

reported

in

Table 9.

Together, ability,

benevolence

and

integrity

measured

at

Time

1

accounted

for

11%

and

6%

of

the

variance

in

resistance

at

Times 1 and

2,

respectively;

only integrity

accounted for

unique

variance

in

the Time

1

measure,

and

only

ability

employee cynicism and resistance to organisational change

Documents