DOT/FAA/AM-00/14

Richard C. Thompson

Kurt M. Joseph

Lawrence L. Bailey

Jody A. Worley

Clara A. Williams

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

May 2000

Final Report

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Organizational Change:

An Assessment of Trust

and Cynicism Office of Aviation Medicine

Washington, D.C. 20591

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOT/FAA/AM-00/14

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Organizational Change: An Assessment of Trust and Cynicism May 2000

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Thompson, R.C., Joseph, K.M, Bailey, L.L., Worley, J.A.,

and Williams, C.A.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute

P.O. Box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

15. Supplemental Notes

Work was completed under assigned task number AM-B-99-HRR-516

16. Abstract

In the organizational science literature, organizational cynicism is generally considered to be conceptually

distinct from organizational trust. This proposition, however, has not been adequately assessed. The present

study attempts to distinguish these two constructs by utilizing organizational-level focused measures. Two

surveys were administered about six months apart to members of a division that was undergoing change in a

large federal agency. Data could be matched for 70 of the respondents on the two surveys. The results show

that a measure of cynicism about change does not predict trust in coworkers or trust in work area managers,

but does predict trust in division managers. These results do not conclusively demonstrate a distinction

between the two constructs, however, they suggest that the constructs are related in a predictable manner.

Finally, from the data obtained in this study of an organizational group undergoing change, it appears that

trust of management is related to increased workgroup cohesion, and that trust is not due only to workforce

cynicism. Instead, trust and cynicism may need to be addressed separately by management in order to most

successfully implement change.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Organizational Cynicism, Organizational Trust,

Organizational Change

Document is available to the public through

the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 12

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

i

1

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:

AN ASSESSMENT OF TRUST AND CYNICISM

Workplace cynicism is an emerging topic in the

organizational science literature (Andersson, 1996;

Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Bateman, Sakano, &

Fujita; 1992; Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998;

Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Thompson, Bailey, Joseph,

Worley, & Williams, 1999). Outside of some specific

employee groups, such as police officers and social

workers, cynicism research in the broader organizational context is in the “introduction and elaboration” stage (Reichers & Schneider, 1990, p. 6).

Therefore, most of the recent theory and research on

organizational cynicism have proposed models of

cynicism, suggesting antecedents and consequences

of cynicism. In addition, this literature has discussed

methods of addressing such cynicism in the context

of organizational change. The literature also has

discussed how organizational cynicism could be distinguished from other organizationally relevant variables. However, little empirical work has focused on

clarifying such distinctions. One such issue in need

of clarification is the distinction between cynicism

and trust; more specifically, cynicism and distrust

(Thompson et al., 1999).

Several writers have indicated that organizational

cynicism is conceptually distinct from organizational

trust. However, at least one empirical assessment

found a moderate correlation between survey measures of cynicism about change and organizational

trust (Thompson et al., 1999). Intuitively, it seems

that cynicism and trust would likely be correlated,

even if they were unique concepts. For example, if a

person is cynical about the future behavior of an

attitude object (e.g., a manager), it is likely that the

person would likewise express some level of distrust

toward the attitude object. Similarly, if a person

trusts an attitude object, it seems unlikely that the

person also would be cynical about that object’s

future behavior. Nonetheless, a review of the literature on organizational cynicism and trust reveals

conceptual distinctions between cynicism and trust,

and other organizationally relevant variables (e.g.,

job satisfaction). Such distinctions have yet to be

tested. Moreover, the literature suggests that cynicism

and distrust result from a similar unmet expectations

and frustration process. This paper reviews the literature on trust and cynicism, discusses the processes

assumed to be necessary for the development of both

cynicism and trust, and provides a test of the relationship between cynicism and trust in an effort to show

a distinction between the two constructs.

Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define trust

as “a willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the

actions of another party based on the expectation that

the other will perform a particular action important

to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or

control the party” (p. 712). The model developed by

these authors does not apply to “trust in a social

system” (p. 729). Nonetheless, the model suggests

that individuals in a setting will each make trust

decisions regarding specific individuals and events.

Some support for this contention has been found

(Butler & Cantrell, 1984). The decision to trust an

individual party is the cumulative result of past

experiences with that party. Because the model is

focused on individuals, the model does not address

issues such as preconceived notions regarding an

individual’s race or gender. Hosmer’s (1995) review

of the organizational trust literature suggests that

trust should lead to greater cooperation among dyads, organizational stakeholders, and members of a

society. Both the Hosmer and Mayer et al. (1995)

reviews suggest that an individual can have differing

levels of trust for the different parties in an organization, such as coworkers, supervisors, and the various

levels of management. Andersson (1996) suggests

that cynicism is distinct from trust because cynicism

is broader in scope and, while it includes a component of mistrust, it also incorporates the affective

components of hopelessness and disillusionment.

For Andersson, trust does not include an affective

component because it is defined as a belief, not an

attitude. Defined this way, the belief component of

trust is included in cynicism, which is an attitude.

Similar distinctions are made by Dean et al. (1998),

who define organizational cynicism as “a negative

attitude toward one’s employing organization” (p.

345). Their definition follows the traditional tripartite model of attitudes (Pratkanis & Greenwald,
2

1989), which includes three separate concepts: belief,

affect, and behavioral components. Conceptualizing

organizational cynicism as an attitude means it is a

state that is more readily changeable, compared with

a personality trait. This conceptualization further

implies that a cynical attitude is subject to the same

change process limitations as are other attitudes (Petty

& Cacioppo, 1986; Chaiken, 1980). Support for

conceptualizing cynicism as an attitude is found in

research showing that viewing a movie intended to

increase cynicism towards American business had the

intended effect (Bateman et al., 1992).

Dean et al. (1998) used the Mayer et al. (1995)

definition of trust to distinguish cynicism from trust

based on several dimensions. First, Dean et al. suggest that a lack of trust is possibly due to a lack of

experience with the other party, whereas cynicism is

argued to be “almost certainly based on experience”

(p. 348). Second, trust requires vulnerability on the

part of the trustor. Trust is not relevant without

vulnerability; however, one can be cynical without

being vulnerable. Third, the notion of trust includes

a facilitative or cooperative component. Fourth, in

contrast to cynicism, trust is argued to lack an affective component, a contention supported by Andersson

(1996). Fifth, Mayer et al. cite research that shows a low

correlation between measures of trust and cynicism.

Kanter and Mirvis (1989) examined the relationship between cynicism and trust in management and

trust in coworkers. In general, their analyses suggest

that cynicism is predictive of levels of trust in an

organization. Thus, the authors do not make specific

distinctions between cynicism and trust; instead,

they suggest that increased cynicism is one possible

precursor of distrust. Kanter and Mirvis do make a

distinction between trust in management and trust in

coworkers. Such a distinction is sensible, given group

differences in the power, decision-making authority,

level in the organization’s structure, and the amount

of day-to-day interaction that occurs among individuals

at different levels of an organizational hierarchy.

Finally, similar developmental processes have been

proposed for organizational cynicism and distrust.

Kramer (1999) reviews several studies that have examined how “unmet or violated expectations” (p.

589) can explain why the public reports less trust in

various institutions. Kramer’s thesis suggests that

highly visible events that demonstrate the inadequacy

of a person or institution, following the heightening

of expectations for that person or institution, lead to

distrust. Similarly, Kanter and Mirvis (1989) suggest

that one way organizations create workforce cynicism

is through a process of raising workforce expectations

to a level where they cannot be met, which, in turn,

leads to workforce frustration. The root cause of both

distrust and cynicism is hypothesized to be a cycle of

raised expectations that are unmet and the frustration

that ensues.

Similar cynicism development processes have been

suggested within the context of organizational change

(Vance, Brooks, Tesluk, & Howard, 1999). Reichers,

Wanous, and Austin (1997) suggest that cynicism

about organizational change is a “loss of faith in the

leaders of change and a response to a history of change

attempts that are not entirely or clearly successful” (p.

48). During organizational change efforts, it is typical for management to explain the proposed changes

to employees and provide assurances regarding possible negative consequences of the change. Such actions are taken to help ensure employee support for

the change or to prevent resistance to change

(Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). If explanations and promises made by management are found

to be untrue over time, some employees may become

cynical about the organization, the leaders of change,

and the organizational change effort. Therefore, cynicism about change can be defined as pessimism and

hopelessness regarding innovation efforts.

In summary, the review of the literature indicates

that organizational cynicism is generally considered

to be distinct from organizational trust. There is,

however, little research evidence to support this contention. Research by the current authors found a

sizable correlation between a measure of cynicism

and general organizational trust (Thompson et al.,

1999), contrary to Dean and associates’ (1998) contention. In addition, the Dean et al. study found

organizational trust to be the best predictor of cynicism about change and perceptions of coworker cynicism. This finding could indicate that trust and

cynicism cannot be distinguished statistically, even

though the constructs have been defined as conceptually distinct.

A better understanding of the relationship between cynicism and trust will emerge by clarifying

these constructs. Given the attitudinal nature of

cynicism proposed by Dean et al. (1998), it is likely

that cynicism can exist for any set of attitude objects.

Moreover, cynicism should be based on experience

with the attitude object. Thus, people who have
3

experienced organizational changes that have not met

their expectations or have led to frustration may

become cynical about organizational change. This

cynicism should be directed at a particular target

(Vance, Brooks, & Tesluk, 1995). That target would

most likely be upper-level management of the organization, assuming that that group was responsible for

the design and implementation of the change. If this

is true, cynicism about organizational change should

predict trust in upper-level management more strongly

than it predicts trust in other organizational groups.

Trust or distrust, like cynicism, should be directed

towards specific attitude objects and based on experience with the attitude object. Again, in the context

of an organizational change, frustration and unmet

expectations should lead to distrust of upper-level

management. Therefore, following research utilizing

measures that focus on specific attitude objects

(Becker, 1992; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert,

1996; Maslyn & Fedor, 1998), the present study uses

three measures of trust that focus on specific levels

within the organization to examine the relationships

between perceptions of cynicism and trust. Specifically, a measure of trust in division managers, work

area managers, and coworkers is predicted from a

measure of cynicism about change. In addition, other

organizationally relevant variables are included to

help clarify the relationship between cynicism about

change and the levels of organizational trust.

To control for some individual differences, respondent gender, work area of the organization, and supervisory status are examined. Next, workgroup cohesion

is assessed, and is expected to be most strongly related to

coworker trust. Job satisfaction is also included because

it is possible that employees who are more satisfied are

also more trusting of others in the work environment

(Driscoll, 1978). In addition, a generic measure of

organizational trust is considered. This measure has

been found to be highly correlated with cynicism about

change in past research (Thompson et al., 1999). It is

expected that the measure of organizational trust should

be more strongly related to each of the specific measures

of trust, compared with cynicism about change. Cynicism about change accounting for additional variance

over that accounted for by organizational trust would

support the contention that there is some degree of

conceptual distinction between these two constructs.

Finally, additional measures of organizational change

perceptions, active participation in change, and

acceptance of change, are also included. Each of these

measures should predict trust, if trust is related to

perceptions about organizational change in general.

METHOD

Participants, Procedures, and Setting

Two surveys were administered to employees of a

division within a large federal agency during the

course of an on-going, large-scale organizational

change. The division has three major work areas, each

with an area manager. Within two of these work areas

are first-line supervisors who report to the area managers. These area managers, in turn, report to an

assistant division and division manager. Of the

division’s 125 employees, 120 completed the first

survey. Approximately 6 months later, 85 employees

completed the second survey. Due to changes in

personnel, the ability to match respondent data on

both surveys was available for 70 of the employees.

For both survey administrations, employees volunteered to participate and completed surveys in

small groups over the course of a week. A proctor

provided instructions and answered employee questions. The proctor also provided assurances of anonymity and confidentiality. Employees completed

both surveys during normal working hours.

Measures

The employees’ supervisory status, gender, and

work area were coded from organizational records.

All remaining survey measures used a seven-point,

Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly

agree). Measures of job satisfaction, organizational

trust, workgroup cohesion, acceptance of change,

willingness to change, and cynicism about change

were obtained on the first survey. With the exception

of cynicism about change, these measures were adapted

from Camman, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983).

A factor analysis of the larger survey was used to

develop the cynicism about change measure. Some of

the items that comprised the cynicism measure were

also adapted from Camman et al. (1983).

The three measures of trust included on the second

survey were developed for this study. The items that

comprised each measure were identical, with the

exception of the referent. Specifically, the items included a referent to division managers, work area

managers, or coworkers. A measure of first-line
4

supervisor trust was not included on the second

survey. The initial survey focused heavily on first-line

supervisors, who were rated very positively on all

measures. As such, trust also was expected to be high;

therefore a measure of first-line supervisor trust was

not included to limit the length of the survey.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics for all measures, along with

internal consistency reliability estimates and

intercorrelations are shown in Table 1. As can be seen

in the table, all of the measures had Cronbach’s

alphas greater than .70, indicating reasonable internal consistency reliability of the measures. The correlations in Table 1 also suggest that perceptions of

work area manager and division manager trust are

very similar (r = .765). Both of these measures are also

correlated with coworker trust, but to a lesser extent

(r = .323 and r = .393, respectively).

Hierarchical statistical regression was used to predict each trust measure obtained on the second survey. The predictor variables were entered in three

steps for each analysis. In the first step, work area,

supervisory status, and gender were entered. This

step was intended to control for possible individual

and work area differences that may exist. The second

step included three measures: job satisfaction, organizational trust, and workgroup cohesion. The last

step entered three measures of change perceptions:

acceptance of change, willingness to change, and

cynicism about change.

The analysis of coworker trust is summarized in

Table 2. The first step of the regression analysis

indicates that respondent work area, supervisory status, and gender are not related to perceptions of

coworker trust, F(3,66) = 2.683, p = .054. In the next

analysis step, the measure of organizational trust and

workgroup cohesion did predict coworker trust, with

the overall model being statistically significant,

F(6,63) = 5.870, p < .001. Table 2 also shows that this

step significantly improved the overall variance accounted for by the model. In the final analysis step,

the organizational change measures did not improve

the prediction of coworker trust nor did they account

for significant additional variance.
5

Table 2. Regression Summary for the Prediction of Coworker Trust

Criterion

Variable Predictor Variable Bˆ t

Model

R2

Model

∆ R2

F for R2

Change

Step 1 Intercept 6.709 6.207*

Work Area -.330 -1.205

Supervisory Status .748 1.529

Gender -.823 -1.682 .109 .109 2.683

Step 2 Intercept 3.310 2.318*

Work Area -.220 -.894

Supervisory Status .699 1.590

Gender -.316 -.711

Job Satisfaction -.115 -.740

Organizational Trust .415 2.806*

Workgroup Cohesion .289 2.408* .359 .250 8.180*

Step 3 Intercept 2.403 1.607

Work Area -.177 -.692

Supervisory Status .635 1.411

Gender -.390 -.882

Job Satisfaction -.214 -1.280

Organizational Trust .231 1.288

Workgroup Cohesion .295 2.381*

Acceptance of Change .271 1.758

Willingness to Change .008 .045

Cynicism about Change .188 .937 .412 .054 1.835

Note: * indicates t and F for ∆ R2are significant at p. < .05.
6

The results of the analysis of work area manager

trust are summarized in Table 3. The initial step of

the regression analysis suggests that there are some

differences in the perceptions of work area manager

trust based on the work area of the respondents,

F(3,64) = 13.681, p < .001. No other individual

difference variable was a significant predictor. In the

next step, as in the analysis of coworker trust, the

prediction of work area manager trust was predicted

by organizational trust and workgroup cohesion,

F(6,61) = 20.408, p < .001. This analysis revealed

that workgroup cohesion was negatively related to

work area manager trust suggesting that for one or

more of the work areas, workgroup cohesion decreases as trust increases. For the final step of this

analysis, Table 3 shows that cynicism about change

also predicted work area manager trust, and that the

overall model was statistically significant, F(9,58) =

14.701, p < .001. However, the addition of cynicism

about change did not significantly increase the variance accounted for by the model over those variables

that were entered previously.

The third analysis, the prediction of division manager trust, is summarized in Table 4. The first step of

the regression analysis was statistically significant,

F(3,66) = 19.552, p < .001. Here, both supervisory

status and gender were predictive of division manager

trust. In the next step of the analysis, the addition of

job satisfaction, organizational trust, and workgroup

cohesion also improved overall prediction, F(6,63) =

12.713, p < .001. Table 4 also shows that with the

inclusion of the additional predictors, supervisory

status remained in the equation but gender did not.

As found in the analysis of work area manager trust,

the relationship between division manager trust and

workgroup cohesion is negative. In the final step of

this analysis, the overall model is statistically significant, F(9,60) = 12.448, p < .001, but of the predictors

Table 3. Regression Summary for the Prediction of Work Area Manager Trust

Criterion

Variable Predictor Variable Bˆ t

Model

R2

Model

∆ R2

F for R2

Change

Step 1 Intercept 7.753 5.890*

Work Area -.716 -2.121*

Supervisory Status 1.071 1.669

Gender -1.096 -1.783 .169 .169 4.328*

Step 2 Intercept 3.148 2.000

Work Area -.255 -.921

Supervisory Status .999 1.910

Gender -.549 -1.087

Job Satisfaction .269 1.567

Organizational Trust .901 5.490*

Workgroup Cohesion -.512 -3.877* .503 .335 13.691*

Step 3 Intercept 2.876 1.742

Work Area -.321 -1.104

Supervisory Status .904 1.711

Gender -.549 -1.083

Job Satisfaction .124 .669

Organizational Trust .642 3.132*

Workgroup Cohesion -.462 -3.369*

Acceptance of Change .068 .396

Willingness to Change -.081 -.404

Cynicism about Change .470 2.063* .544 .041 1.717

Note: * indicates t and F for ∆ R2are significant at p. < .05.
7

added in this step only cynicism about change is

significantly related to division manager trust. With

the addition of cynicism about change, workgroup

cohesion drops out of the model, leaving only supervisory status and organizational trust from the previous steps. It is important to note that the final step

also significantly increased the variance accounted

for, suggesting that cynicism about change is a predictor of trust in upper management.

DISCUSSION

The goal of the present study was to determine if

cynicism about change and trust could be empirically

distinguished. The ability to differentially predict

trust based on the hierarchical level of the organization supports this contention. As anticipated, cynicism about change significantly improved the prediction

of trust in upper-level management only. Cynicism

about change did not improve the prediction of

coworker or work area manager trust. This result

suggests that employees make distinctions among the

organizational groups that they trust and toward

whom they direct their cynicism.

This study has several strengths. First, the predictor measures were obtained on a survey six months

prior to the collection of the three criterion measures

of trust. In addition, a generic measure of organizational trust that was found to be highly correlated

with the measure of cynicism regarding change used

here was also used as a predictor. Had these been

redundant measures, it is likely that the cynicism

measure would not have entered any of the equations

nor accounted for any additional variance. Also, the

study utilized measures of trust that focused on

distinct groups within the organization, rather than

using a single measure of organizational trust.

This study also has several weaknesses. First, the

only measure of cynicism was a measure of cynicism

regarding change. Additional measures of cynicism

Table 4. Regression Summary for the Prediction of Division Manager Trust

Criterion

Variable Predictor Variable Bˆ t

Model

R2

Model

∆ R2

F for R2

Change

Step 1 Intercept 7.932 5.827*

Work Area -.681 -1.973

Supervisory Status 1.437 2.332*

Gender -1.337 -2.170* .205 .205 5.683*

Step 2 Intercept 1.741 1.089

Work Area -.235 -.855

Supervisory Status 1.388 2.822*

Gender -.500 -1.005

Job Satisfaction .203 1.163

Organizational Trust .997 6.020*

Workgroup Cohesion -.270 -2.009* .548 .342 15.896*

Step 3 Intercept .757 .492

Work Area -.232 -.885

Supervisory Status 1.020 2.205*

Gender -.620 -1.365

Job Satisfaction -.061 -.358

Organizational Trust .557 3.027*

Workgroup Cohesion -.235 -1.848

Acceptance of Change .192 1.209

Willingness to Change .058 .312

Cynicism about Change .684 3.315* .651 .104 5.939*

Note: * indicates t and F for ∆ R2are significant at p. < .05.
8

may have led to different conclusions, and should be

examined in future research. In addition, although

they were separated by time, the study still relied on

survey measures. Even with the use of separate surveys, the threat of mono-method bias still exists.

Other assessments of cynicism, such as peer or supervisory ratings in addition to self-ratings of cynicism,

may be useful in future research.

While this study provides support for the distinction between cynicism and trust, additional research

is needed. For example, clarification is needed regarding the expectation and frustration cycle and its

relationship to the development of cynicism and

distrust. The process involved in this cycle may be

different than those proposed. Alternatively, there

may be a temporal component involved in the expectation and frustration cycle. For instance, over a

relatively shorter period of time, unmet expectations

may lead to distrust for specific attitude objects. The

formation of distrust may continue to evolve, and

based on the repetition of the cycle, eventually develop into cynicism. Longitudinal research that tracks

new hires and assesses the development of trust or

cynicism or both may help to clarify the processes

involved in the expectation and frustration cycle.

This study also has implications for employees at

various levels of an organization involved in an organizational change. Specifically, the results suggest

that if there is widespread cynicism about some

organizational change effort, this cynicism is not due

only to mistrust. Indeed, coworker and work area

manager trust were not predicted by cynicism about

change. Instead, workgroup cohesion was the strongest predictor of both coworker and work area manager trust. Interestingly, workgroup cohesion is a

negative predictor of work area manager and division

manager trust. This finding suggests that increasing

mistrust (or decreasing trust) of work area and division managers is related to greater cohesion in the

workgroup. Stated another way, mistrust of management tends to be related to increasing workgroup

cohesion. Such solidarity may be used to resist the

organizational change. Finally, the results suggest

that prior to an organizational change, management

may want to determine both the level of trust that

exists in the workplace as well as the level of employee

cynicism. Examining both of these issues may lead to

separate efforts to prepare for and successfully accomplish the larger change effort.

REFERENCES

Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework.

Human Relations, 49, 1395-1418.

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism

in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449-469.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W.

(1993). Creating readiness for organizational

change. Human Relations, 46, 683-703.

Bateman, T. S., Sakano, T., & Fujita, M. (1992).

Roger, me, and my attitude: Film propaganda

and cynicism toward corporate leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 768-771.

Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment:

Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 232-244.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of commitment: Implications for job performance, Academy

of Management Journal, 39, 464-482.

Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral

decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust

in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.

Camman, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G., & Klesh, J.

(1983). Assessing attitudes and perceptions of

organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler,

P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.). Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures,

and practices (pp. 71-138). New York: John Wiley.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus

message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998).

Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341-352.

Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in

organizational decision making as predictors of

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21,

44-56.
9

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link

between organizational theory and philosophical

ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-

403.

Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical

Americans: Living and working in an age of

discontent and disillusionment. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions.

Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.

Maslyn, J. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Perceptions of

politics: Does measuring different foci matter.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 645-653.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-

734.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication

and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to

attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). A

sociocognitive model of attitude structure and

function. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 245-285.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and

culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider

(Ed.). Organizational climate and culture. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997).

Understanding and managing cynicism about

organizational change. Academy of Management

Executive, 11, 48-57.

Thompson, R. C., Bailey, L. L., Joseph, K. M., Worley,

J., & Williams, C. (1999, August). Effects of

fairness perceptions on organizational cynicism.

Poster presented at the 107th Annual Meeting

of the American Psychological Association,

Boston, MA.

Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M., & Tesluck, P. E. (1995,

May). Organizational cynicism, cynical cultures,

and organizational change efforts. Paper presented

at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M., Tesluck, P. E., & Howard,

M. J. (1999, May). Longitudinal and multilevel

influences on cynical climates and resistance to change.

Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of

the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
10