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 employeesÕ 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: [e-mail].

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4, Summer 2005 (

2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2

429

0889-3268/05/0600-0429/0

2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

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 oneÕs 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).

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

430

Tab

le

1

The

Variou

s

Definition

s

o

f

Cynic

ism

Sour

ce

C

onstruct

Name

De

scription

Samp

le

Item

Kant

er

an

d

Mirvis

(19

89)

C

ynicism

‘‘cynics

are

close-m

inded

an

d

disillusioned.

They

cas

t

aspers

ions

upon

thos

e

they

deal

with

an

d

believ

e

that

peo

ple

are

self

-centered

and

self-se

rvi

ng.

..

.

Cynics

at

work

dee

ply

doubt

the

truth

of

what

their

ma

nageme

nt

tell

them

and

belie

ve

tha

t

their

comp

anies,

given

a

chance,

will

tak

e

advan

tage

of

them’’

(pp.

1–

2).

‘‘Mo

st

people

will

tel

l

a

lie

if

they

can

gain

by

it.’’

Bate

man,

Suka

no

an

d

Fuj

itu

(1992)

,

A

ndersson

an

d

B

atema

n

(1997)

C

ynicism

Cynici

sm

reflect

s

‘‘ne

gative,

dist

rustfu

l

attitudes

toward

authority

and

institution

s’’

(Batem

an

et

al.

,

p.

768)

C

ynicism

to

ward

comp

any

and

its

ma

nagement

‘‘

Th

e

mana

gement

at

[co

mpan

y

name]

will

take

adv

antage

of

you

if

you

give

them

a

chan

ce

.’’

Item

s

also

taken

from

Kant

er

an

d

Mirvis

(19

89)

and

Bate

man

et

al.

(1992

)

C

ynicism

to

ward

busin

ess

organ

ization

s

and

execut

ives

‘‘I

often

dou

bt

the

truth

of

wh

at

top

mana

geme

nt

tells

employee

s.’’

Item

s

taken

fro

m

Kant

er

and

Mi

rvis

(1989

)

and

Bate

man

et

al.

(1992

)

C

ynicism

to

ward

hum

an

natu

re

‘‘Most

people

are

not

really

hon

est

for

a

desirabl

e

reason

;

they

Õre

afra

id

of

gettin

g

caug

ht.

’’

Item

s

from

Wrigh

tsm

an

Õs

Philosophie

s

o

f

Hum

an

Nature

(Wrightsman,

1992)

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

431

T

able

1

(Cont

inued)

Source

Cons

truct

Nam

e

D

e

scription

Sample

Item

Reichers

,

Wanous,

an

d

Aust

in

(1997)

,

Wa

nous,

Reichers

,

an

d

Aust

in

(2000)

Cynic

ism

about

chan

ge

Cynicism

about

chan

ge

involve

s

a

real

loss

of

faith

in

leader

s

of

change

an

d

is

a

respons

e

to

a

histo

ry

of

change

atte

mpts

tha

t

are

not

entir

ely

or

cle

arly

successful

(Reichers

et

al.

,

p

.

40).

Subsc

ale:

Pess

imism

ab

out

the

effec

tiveness

of

chan

ge

‘‘Most

of

the

progra

ms

that

are

suppo

sed

to

solve

prob

lems

around

here

won

Õt

do

much

good

.’’

Subsc

ale:

Int

ernal

attr

ibution

for

th

is

situ

ation

‘‘The

people

re

sponsible

for

solvin

g

prob

lems

arou

nd

here

do

not

tr

y

hard

enough

to

solve

them

.’’

Vance,

Br

ooks,

an

d

Tesluk

(1996

)

Cynic

ism

‘‘the

belie

f

tha

t

change

fo

r

the

better

in

the

or

ganiza

tion

is

possib

le

bu

t

unlik

ely;

tha

t

reality

will

contin

ue

to

fall

far

sho

rt

of

the

idea

l,

for

re

asons

beyond

the

contro

l

of

the

cy

nic’’

(Va

nce

et

al.,

p.

7).

Subsc

ale:

C

ynicism

‘‘Person

al

initi

ative

doe

sn

Õt

count

for

much

in

this

orga

nization

.’’

Subsc

ale:

Imp

rovability

‘‘If

people

wo

rked

toget

her

on

problem

s

arou

nd

here,

things

would

impro

ve.’

’

Abraha

m

(2000)

Pe

rsonality

cynic

ism

‘‘Persona

lity

cynicism

is

the

only

for

m

of

cynici

sm

tha

t

is

an

innate,

stable

trait

reflect

ing

a

gene

rally

nega

tive

perception

of

hum

an

beh

avior.

It

is

ch

aracterized

b

y

cynical

conte

mp

t

and

we

ak

in

terperson

al

bondin

g.

There

is

a

dee

p-root

ed

mi

strust

of

others

based

upon

the

sw

eeping

g

eneraliza

tion

that

the

wo

rld

is

filled

with

dishonest,

co

nnivin

g,

unca

ring,

and

selfi

sh

people

who

are

in

capable

of

being

pleasant

in

social

interac

tions.’

’

(p.

270)

‘‘No

one

cares

much

ab

out

what

happens

to

you.’’

Mea

sured

usin

g

Cyni

cial

Host

ility

subsca

le

from

C

ook

an

d

Medley

(1954)

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

432

Societa

l

cyni

cism

‘‘Societ

al

cy

nicism

may

be

view

ed

as

the

produc

t

of

the

breac

h

of

the

socia

l

contra

ct

betwe

en

the

individ

ual

an

d

societ

y

..

.

The

ha

llmark

of

the

societ

al

cynic

is

es

tran

geme

nt

fro

m

th

e

so

cial

a

nd

economic

inst

itutions

that

the

y

blame

for

th

eir

fate.

Their

d

es

pair

over

the

fu

ture

leads

to

sho

rt-term

intere

sts

,

with

every

jo

b

a

ssignment

a

n

d

oppor

tunity

approached

with

a

self

-serving

‘‘Wha

tÕ

si

ni

t

for

me?’’

(Ka

nter

&

Mir

vis,

19

89,

p.

36)

attitude,

wh

ich

resu

lts

in

limi

ted

job

involve

men

t

and

bitte

rnes

s.’’

(p.

27

1)

‘‘Mo

st

peo

ple

will

tell

a

lie

if

they

can

gain

by

it.’’

Mea

sure

d

usin

g

Kant

er

an

d

Mirvis

(19

89)

sca

le

Emplo

yee

cynicism

‘‘Em

ploye

e

Cynici

sm

is

targe

ted

toward

big

busine

ss,

top

ma

nageme

nt,

an

d

‘‘other’’

entitie

s

in

the

workp

lace

...

Fe

elings

of

ineq

uity

distinguish

emp

loyee

cynics

fro

m

othe

rs.’’

(p.

272)

‘‘I

often

doubt

the

truth

of

wh

at

ma

nageme

nt

tells

us.’’

Mea

sure

d

usin

g

Ande

rsso

n,

an

d

B

atema

n

(1997)

scale

Organiz

atio

nal

change

cy

nicism

‘‘Org

anizat

ional

change

cynic

ism

is

a

reactio

n

to

failed

chan

ge

efforts,

consisting

of

pessim

ism

about

the

success

of

fu

ture

efforts

an

d

the

belie

f

that

chan

ge

agents

are

lazy

and

inc

ompete

nt.

With

in

a

psy

chological

conta

ct

violat

ion

frame

wor

k,

ma

nageme

nt

is

perceived

as

ha

ving

violat

ed

its

obligation

to

contin

ua

lly

see

k

mea

ns

to

enh

ance

corporate

perfor

mance.

’’

(p.

272)

‘‘Mo

st

of

the

progra

ms

tha

t

are

suppo

sed

to

solve

probl

ems

arou

nd

here

don

Õt

do

any

g

ood.’’

Mea

sure

d

usin

g

Rei

chers

et

al.

(19

97)

sca

le

Work

cy

nicism

‘‘W

ork

cynicism

beco

mes

a

copin

g

stra

tegy

for

thw

arted

comp

etenc

e,

caus

ing

individ

uals

to

dep

ersona

lize

or

dist

ance

them

selve

s

from

cons

ume

rs.

Work

cynic

ism

is

chara

cterized

b

y

emo

tiona

l

num

bness

,

det

achmen

t,

callou

sne

ss

..

.

and

lack

of

caring’’

(p.

273)

Exam

ple

item

not

provided

Mea

sure

d

usin

g

O

ÕConn

ell,

Holzm

an,

an

d

Ar

mand

iÕ

s

(1986

)

Work

Cynici

sm

subsca

le

of

their

Organiz

atio

nal

Cynic

ism

Scale

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

433

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 AbrahamÕs
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

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

434

be successful, and tend to attribute failure to managementÕs 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 colleaguesÕ 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 differ 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 AnderssonÕs (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

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

435

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 anotherÕs 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 managementÕs
stated or implied motives for a specific organizational change; management
cynicism is a disbelief in managementÕs 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 latterÕs

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

436

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 managementÕs
attempt to communicate the reasons for the change. In contrast, skepticism
should relate more strongly to perception of managementÕs 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 individualÕs 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

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

437

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 & Banas, 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 organizational change (Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al.,
2000).

Although research by Reichers et al. (1997) and Wanous et al. (2000)

investigated cynicism about organizational change 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 employeeÕs perceptions of man-
agementÕs 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 managementÕs
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 organizational change 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.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

438

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 managementÕs 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
managementÕs 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 change-specific cynicism 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

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

439

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)

· 2 (high vs. low skepticism)

ANOVAs. As expected, these analyses revealed strong main effects of the
cynicism manipulation on the cynicism scale, F(1, 118) = 247.7, p < .01,
g

2

= .65, and of the skepticism manipulation on the skepticism scale, F(1,

118) = 170.1, p < .01, g

2

= .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 change-specific cynicism (‘‘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 below
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 2

· 2 ANOVAs conducted on the single-

item measures revealed strong main effects of the cynicism manipulation
on the cynicism item, F(1, 167) = 147.5, p < .01, g

2

= .47, and of the

skepticism manipulation on the skepticism item, F(1, 167) = 97.9,
p < .01, g

2

= .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

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

440

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 managementÕs judgment.’’ The Cronbach
alpha for this measure was .85.

Intention to Resist Change. We wrote three items to measure employeesÕ
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.

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

441

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-
mentÕs competence to implement the change (e.g., ‘‘I donÕt 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 (X

2

[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.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

442

T

able

2

Mean

s,

Sta

ndard

D

eviat

ions,

Reli

abiliti

es

an

d

Corre

lation

s

for

Stud

y

1

Variab

les

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5678

9

1.

Cha

nge-specific

cynicism

2.99

1.42

(.94)

2.

Skep

ticism

3.68

1.61

.47**

(.9

3)

3.

Dispo

sition

al

cynicism

3.44

1.22

.22

.

26*

(.7

8)

4.

Manag

eme

nt

cynici

sm

4.27

1.47

.54**

.5

0**

.2

4

(.8

3)

5.

Trust

in

manag

ement

3.67

1.22

–.30*

–.54**

–.21

–.66**

(.81)

6.

Comm

unica

tion

5.52

1.28

–.53**

–.30*

–.14

–.29*

.11

(.88)

7.

Genera

l

comp

eten

ce

4.42

1.35

–.45**

–.55**

–.25*

–.71**

.79*

*

.14

(.86)

8.

Cha

nge

competence

4.88

1.45

–.35*

–.75**

–.21

–.59**

.56*

*

.30*

.71*

*

(.93)

9.

Inten

tion

to

resist

2.42

1.18

.49**

.6

7**

.1

8

.3

4**

–.37**

–.46**

–.39**

–.

55**

(.7

8)

Note

.

Estim

ates

of

each

sca

le

Õs

intern

al

cons

isten

cy

(Cro

nbach

Õs

Alpha

)

are

presented

on

the

diagona

l

in

par

enthes

es.

N

=

58–6

5.

*

p

<

.05,

**

p

<

.01.

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

443

Table 3

Item Parameter Estimates and Obtained in Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Change-Specific Cynicism

Factor 1

1. I believe that managementÕs motives for this change are different from those

stated publicly

.701

2. I believe that management has a ‘‘hidden agenda’’ in promoting this change

.813

3. Management has been honest in conveying the reasons for this change (R)

.853

4. Management is trying to hide the reason for this change

.873

5. There is more to this change than management is admitting

.787

6. I question managementÕs motives for this change

.835

7. I believe that managementÕs intentions in introducing this change are very

different than they are telling employees

.869

8. Management has been honest in stating its objectives for this change (R)

.839

Skepticism

Factor 2

1. I am quite confident this change will have the desired effect (R)

.747

2. I have doubts that this change will achieve its objective

.655

3. I need to be convinced that this change will achieve its objectives

.626

4. I have doubts that this change will achieve its objective

.923

5. I question whether this change will achieve its objective

.951

6. I think this change will achieve its objective (R)

.859

7. I have doubts that this change will work as intended

.881

Dispositional Cynicism

Factor 3

1. I often wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing

something nice for me

a

.564

2. Most people pretend to care about things they hate so that they will

gain profit or an advantage

a

.564

3. In order to get ahead, people pretend to care more about one another than

they really do

b

.682

4. I tend to be on my guard with people who are more friendly than

I had expected

.753

5. I find that most people disguise their true motives for doing something

.691

Management Cynicism

Factor 4

1. I often question the motives of management in this organization

.624

2. Management in this organization is always up-front about its reasons

for doing things (R)

.809

3. I believe that there are ulterior motives for most of the decisions made

by management in this organization

.577

4. I think that management would misrepresent its intentions to

gain acceptance for a decision it wanted to make

.668

5. Management is always honest about its objectives (R)

.833

Trust in Management

Factor 5

1. If I was given a choice, I would not allow management to make decisions

concerning employee well-being (R)

.578

2. I am willing to follow managementÕs lead even in risky situations

.595

3. I trust management to make the right decisions in situations that affect

me personally

.729

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

444

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.,

Table 4

Correlations Among the Latent Variables in the Five-Factor Model

Latent Variable

1

2

3

4

1. Change-specific cynicism
2. Skepticism

.488

3. Dispositional cynicism

.280

.364

4. Management cynicism

.629

.631

.359

5. Trust in management

–.339

–.658

–.221

–.767

Note. N = 65.

Table 5

Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Change-specific Cynicism and

Skepticism in Study 1

Criterion Variable

Change-specific Cynicism

Skepticism

Predictors

b

r

b

r

Dispositional cynicism

.05

.22

.09

.26

Management cynicism

.30*

.54**

.06

.50**

Communication

–.43**

–.53**

–.08

–.30**

General competence

–.15

–.45**

.01

–.55**

Change competence

.03

–.35**

–.68**

–.75**

R

2

.44**

.58**

Adjusted R

2

.39**

.54**

Note. Regression coefficients are standardized. N = 65.

* p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 3 (Continued)

4. When it comes to making decisions that affect me, I have as much or

more faith in managementÕs judgment as I would in my own

.794

5. Even if a bad decision could have very negative consequences for me, I

would trust managementÕs judgment

.728

Note. All parameter estimates are statistically significant (p > .05). Parameters for factors

not indicated were set to zero. (R) indicates a reverse-keyed item.

a

Indicates adapted from Cook and Medley (1954).

b

Indicates adapted from a Kanter and Mirvis (1989) item.

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

445

the change in X

2

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 (X

2

[399] = 837.43, p < .001; CFI = .895; RMSEA = .131;

DX

2

[4] = 261.09, p < .001). Similarly, models combining change-specific

cynicism with dispositional cynicism (X

2

[399] = 650.53, p < .001;

CFI = .940; RMSEA = .099; DX

2

[4] = 74.19, p < .001), management

cynicism (X

2

[399] = 654.53, p < .001; CFI = .939; RMSEA = .100; DX

2

[4] = 78.19, p < .001), and trust in management (X

2

[399] = 690.99,

p < .001; CFI = .930; RMSEA = .107; DX

2

[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

(X

2

[399] = 604.59,

p < .001;

CFI = .951;

RMSEA = .090; DX

2

[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

b

r

Step 1

Dispositional cynicism

.09

.18

Management cynicism

.16

.34**

Trust in management

–.23

–.37**

R

2

.15*

Adjusted R

2

.10*

Step 2

Dispositional cynicism

–.01

.18

Management cynicism

–.12

.34**

Trust in management

–.06

–.37**

Change

)specific cynicism

.27*

.49**

Skepticism

.57**

.67**

R

2

.49**

Adjusted R

2

.44**

DR

2

.34**

Note. Regression coefficients are standardized. N = 65.

* p < .05, ** p < .01.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

446

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 change-specific cynicism 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

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

447

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 DavisÕs (1999) ability, benevolence, and integrity
scales to assess employeesÕ 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. EmployeesÕ level of
support/resistance for the change was assessed using a 101-point

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

448

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 7

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities and Correlations for Study 2

Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. Change-specific cynicism 3.12 1.04 (.90)
2. Skepticism

3.26 0.84 .39** (.69)

3. Ability

2.95 0.82 –.45** –.50** (.86)

4. Benevolence

2.19 0.79 –.41** –.43** .67** (.91)

5. Integrity

2.69 0.76 –.48** –.46** .78**

.79** (.86)

6. Communication

3.15 0.85 –.47** –.36** .47**

.39** .44** (.75)

7. Time 1 resistance

29.93 15.90 .34*

.32** –.29** –.31** –.33** –.24** –

8. Time 2 resistance

27.46 15.02 .23** .20** –.24**

).18** –.21** –.15** .42** –

Note. Estimates of each scales internal consistency (CronbachÕs 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.

Table 8

Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Change-specific Cynicism and

Skepticism in Study 2

Criterion Variable

Change-specific Cynicism

Skepticism

Predictors

b

r

b

r

Ability

).08

).45**

).30**

).50**

Benevolence

).05

).41**

).13*

).43**

Integrity

).24**

).48**

).05

).46**

Communication

).31**

).47**

).14**

).36**

R

2

.32**

.28**

Adjusted R

2

.31**

.28**

Note. All variables were measured at Time 1. Regression coefficients are standardized.

N = 659.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.

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

449

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

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

450

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 change-specific cynicism
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 accounted for unique variance in the Time 2
measure. The Time 1 change-specific cynicism and skepticism measures
together accounted for an additional 6% and 2% of the variance in
resistance at Times 1 and 2, respectively. Cynicism accounted for unique
variance in resistance at both times, whereas skepticism accounted for
unique variance only for the Time 1 measure. Thus, the revised version
of Hypothesis 3 is partially supported.

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

b

r

b

r

Step 1

Ability

–.09

–.29**

–.19*

–.24**

Benevolence

–.12

–.31**

–.00

–.18**

Integrity

–.16*

–.33**

–.07

–.21**

R

2

.11**

.06

Adjusted R

2

.11**

.05

Step 2

Ability

.00

–.29**

–.15

–.24**

Benevolence

–.08

–.31**

.02

–.18**

Integrity

–.09

–.33**

–.01

–.21**

Change

)specific cynicism

.21**

.34**

.15**

.23**

Skepticism

.17**

.32**

–.06

.20**

R

2

.18**

.08**

Adjusted R

2

.17**

.07**

DR

2

.06**

.02*

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.

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

451

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Cynicism is a negative attitude that can be general or specific and

has cognitive, affective and behavioral components (Andersson, 1996;
Dean et al., 1998). Our objectives in this research were to clarify the
meaning and measurement of cynicism, and to examine its relation to
employee reactions to organizational change. To this end, we identified
what we believed to be the ‘‘core essence’’ of cynicism rather than
treating it as a complex ‘‘syndrome.’’ There are several potential
advantages to this approach. First, it allows for the development of
comparable measures of cynicism at different levels of specificity. Second,
it minimizes the loss of information and misinterpretation of research
findings that can result when loosely related components are combined
within a general measure (cf. Spence et al., 1987; Paunonen, 1998). Fi-
nally, it helps to clarify the boundaries between cynicism and related
constructs (e.g., skepticism, trust).

In our attempt to identify the core essence of cynicism, we looked for

commonality in existing definitions, including that in the authoritative
OED. We concluded that the defining characteristic of cynicism was
disbelief in the motives of others. This applies to cynicism about people in
general, about certain types of people (e.g., management), or about one or
more individuals within a specific context (e.g., organizational change). It
is possible that beliefs regarding motives are inextricably linked to other
beliefs, in which case there might be benefit to expanding the definition
of cynicism in the future. We argue, however, that any expansion of the
construct should proceed cautiously based on solid empirical evidence
that ‘‘more is better’’ (e.g., that a more complex construct affords more
precise prediction and more accurate prescription for action). In the
present research, we provided evidence, at least within a change context,
for distinctions between disbelief in the motives for a change (cynicism)
and more general concerns about the viability of the change (skepticism)
and general mistrust of management.

Cynicism vs. Skepticism

Although both Kanter and Mirvis (1989) and Reichers et al. (1997)

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

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

452

pilot studies where manipulation of information about cynicism and
skepticism had the intended effects on responses to newly developed
change-specific cynicism and skepticism scales. Moreover, in Study 1, we
found that the items from the multi-item change-specific cynicism and
skepticism scales loaded on separate factors, and the pattern of relations
with hypothesized antecedent variables was somewhat different for
cynicism and skepticism. Even the single-item measures used in Study 2
showed a different pattern of relations with the antecedent variables and
accounted for unique variance in resistance.

Admittedly, cynicism and skepticism are related–they correlated

positively in both Studies 1 and 2 (r = .47 and .39, p < .01, respectively).
It is not clear from the present research whether this relation is causal,
or is due to the fact that cynicism and skepticism have common ante-
cedents. Some support for the common antecedents hypothesis was
provided by the results of the correlation and regression analyses con-
ducted in Studies 1 and 2. Although the patterns of relations we observed
were somewhat different, all of the antecedent measures we examined
correlated in the same direction with both cynicism and skepticism. Of
course, this does not rule out the possibility that cynicism and skepticism
are themselves causally related. Disbelieving managementÕs motives
(cynicism) might be one factor that contributes to doubt about the via-
bility of a change (skepticism). Alternatively, having doubts about the
viability of a change for the attainment of its stated objectives might lead
employees to wonder whether management has ulterior motives for
implementing the change.

Cynicism vs. Trust

We hypothesized that cynicism would be related to, but distin-

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

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

453

cynicism and trust in future research might require demonstrating that
mistrust can exist even in the absence of cynicism.

Cynicism and Resistance to Change

Another important issue addressed in this research was whether

cynicism is a factor contributing to employee resistance to organizational
change, as has been suggested (e.g., Reichers et al., 1997; Vance et al.,
1996). Accordingly, we asked employees currently experiencing organi-
zational change to indicate whether they intended to resist the change
(Study 1), or to indicate on a continuum from resistance to championing
how they would characterize their current change-relevant behavior
(Study 2). In both cases, we found evidence for a relation between cyni-
cism and resistance. In Study 1, we found that change-specific cynicism
correlated more strongly with intention to resist change than did the
more global forms of cynicism. This is consistent with previous research
demonstrating that specific attitudes predict behavior better than do
general attitudes (e.g., Eagly & Chaikin, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
In Study 2, we found that even the single-item measure of change-spe-
cific cynicism obtained at the launch of a large organizational change
significantly predicted self-reported resistance 8 months later. In both
studies, change-specific cynicism accounted for a significant portion of
the variance in the resistance measure even with skepticism and trust
(or its antecedents) controlled. Interestingly, skepticism also accounted
for unique variance in resistance in both studies.

Although significant, the amount of variance in resistance explained

by change-specific cynicism was modest in both studies. This is not
surprising given that there are many factors that can contribute to
resistance (Hultman, 1998; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Interestingly,
change-specific cynicism correlated more strongly with the resistance
measure in Study 1 (r = .49) than it did in Study 2 (r = .34 at Time 1).
This might be due, in part, to the fact that the multi-item measures used
in Study 1 were more reliable than the single-item measures used in
Study 2. There was also more variability in the cynicism scores in Study
1 than in Study 2 (due, perhaps, to the fact that employees worked in
many different organizations). All else equal, greater reliability and
variability produce higher correlations. Another possible explanation is
that the outcome measure in Study 1 focused specifically on self-reported
resistance, whereas in Study 2 it involved a continuum reflecting varying
degrees of resistance and support. Although cynicism should account for
variance in level of self-reported resistance, it might not explain variance
in the level of support among non-resistors. Therefore, the correlation
obtained in Study 2 might underestimate the strength of the relation
between cynicism and self-reported resistance.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

454

We also found that change-specific cynicism and skepticism ac-

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

Limitations

Before discussing the implications of our findings for future research

and the management of organizational change, it is important to
acknowledge the limitations of the research. First, we relied exclusively
on the use of self-report measures, which might raise concern about the
effect of common method variance. Although caution must certainly be
exercised in interpreting the zero-order correlations, the common method
variance problem is of less concern for the interpretation of the regres-
sion analyses where our objective was to account for unique variance. In
this case, the presence of common method variance would make it more
difficult to find support for our hypotheses. The same is true for the CFA
conducted to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the constructs. We also
addressed the common method variance problem, in part, by examining
relations between attitudes and resistance over time in Study 2.

Second, our research design did not allow us to draw meaningful

conclusions about the direction of causality. As noted earlier, although
we referred to some variables as antecedents and others as outcomes,
this distinction was made on purely theoretical grounds. Even the
analyses of the longitudinal data in Study 2 did not allow us to address
the issue of causality because we did not measure cynicism and skepti-
cism at Time 2. Our primary objective in this research was to demon-
strate the distinctiveness of change-specific cynicism from related
constructs, and to provide preliminary evidence for its links to resistance
to organizational change. The positive results of this research set the
stage for future investigation of causal connections.

Finally, we developed several new measures for this research.

Although we paid careful attention to issues of validity for some of these,
most notably change-specific cynicism and skepticism, we considered
little more than reliability for others. Our confidence in the findings,
therefore, rests on the assumption that these measures accurately reflect
the intended constructs. That the pattern of results was generally

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

455

consistent with prediction is encouraging, but confidence in the findings
will require replication.

Directions for Future Research

In addition to replicating our main findings, there are several issues

that warrant further investigation. First, although we believe that the
findings justify our argument for a narrowing of the definition of cyni-
cism to a focus on motives, we invite efforts to expand the construct. As
we noted earlier, however, any expansion should be justified in terms of
gain in information, accuracy in prediction, and improvements in
applications. It should also be applicable at all levels of the attitude to
facilitate cross-level research.

We also invite competitive tests of our conceptualization and mea-

surement of cynicism against others. For example, we noted earlier that
the definition of cynicism about organizational change developed by
Reichers and her colleagues (Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 2000)
corresponds more closely to skepticism than to cynicism, as we have
defined them. This is a testable hypothesis, but it will require the
development of additional measures. Note that our measures address
cynicism and skepticism about a specific change initiative, whereas
Reichers and colleaguesÕ measure focuses on change in general. It should
be possible to apply our definitions to develop measures of cynicism and
skepticism about change in general. These could then be used to test our
hypothesis. They could also be used along with our current measures to
determine whether measuring cynicism and skepticism about a specific
change initiative affords more accurate prediction of employeesÕ behav-
ioral response to the change than does cynicism and skepticism about
change in general.

Finally, we focused on the cognitive component of cynicism in this

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

Implications for the Management of Change

While acknowledging the limitations of this preliminary investiga-

tion and the need for additional research, we conclude by identifying

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

456

some of the implications of our findings for anticipating and managing
employee resistance to organizational change. Our findings suggest that
employee cynicism relates to, and might influence, employeesÕ intention
to resist change. Consequently, those responsible for managing change
would be well advised to take cynicism, particularly change-specific
cynicism, into account.

Although our investigation of the antecedents of change-specific

cynicism was limited, and intended primarily to illustrate the distinction
between cynicism and skepticism, the findings offer some suggestions for
the management of these change-relevant attitudes. Employees tended
to be more cynical about an organizational change when they were
cynical about management in general. Interestingly, dispositional cyni-
cism did not relate significantly to change-specific cynicism. Therefore,
cynicism about a change seems to be a reaction to experiences within the
organization rather than to a more general ‘‘world view.’’ Beliefs about
managementÕs competence, in general and in the implementation of
change, were also related to cynicism, albeit not as strongly as they were
to skepticism. Again, then, this suggests that employeesÕ change-relevant
attitudes are shaped by their organizational experiences. The fact that
cynicism and skepticism were both negatively related to employee per-
ceptions of the adequacy of communication about the change, provides
further support for the commonly held believe that communication
should be a key component in the effective implementation of any change
initiative (e.g., Connor, 1992; Hultman, 1998).

Although communication is undoubtedly important in overcoming

resistance to change, we believe that resistance based on employee
cynicism might provide a unique challenge for management–one that has
not been adequately addressed in the change-management literature.
Unlike some other forms of resistance, resistance based on disbelief in
motives cannot be easily addressed with facts and figures. Motives must
be inferred from words and actions, and the process of drawing infer-
ences is highly subjective. Once employees begin to question manage-
mentÕs motives, it will likely be difficult to convince them that their
concerns are not justified––the words and deeds required to convey this
information will themselves be questioned. Indeed, there is the potential
here for an escalating cycle of cynicism.

If attempts to communicate with employees about the change are

unsuccessful in overcoming resistance in the short term, as they are likely
to be, management might themselves become cynical about employeesÕ
motives. If so, it could lead them to take actions (e.g., withholding
information; forcing compliance) that reinforce employeesÕ cynicism and
resistance–and so the cycle continues. To avoid, or break, this cycle of
cynicism, management must recognize that overcoming cynicism will
take time, and might require special strategies. For example, one way for

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

457

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

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and

General Psychology Monographs, 126, 269–292.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and

review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.

Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a critical

radical humanism?. Academy of Management Review, 17, 407–431.

Andersson, L. M. & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and

effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449–469.

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

framework. Human Relations, 49, 1395–1418.

Arbuckle J. L. (1999). Amos 4. Chicago: SmallWaters Corp.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for orga-

nization change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.

Bateman, T. S., Sakano, T., & Fujita, M. (1992). Roger, me, and my attitude: Film propa-

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

Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of

covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107, 238–246.

Bray, D. W. (1994). Personnel-centered organizational diagnosis. In A. Howard (Ed.). (pp.

152–171). New York: Guilford Press.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen

& J. S. Long (Eds.) ,Testing structural equation models. (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and

prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.

Cook, W. W. & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the

MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414–418.

Dean, J. W. Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy

of Management Review, 23(2), 342–352.

Dudley, D. R. (1937). A history of cynicism. London: Methuen and Co.
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Toronto: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich College Publishers.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a

three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

458

Hultman, K. (1998). Making change irresistible: Overcoming resistance to change in your

organization. Palo-Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Jackson., D. N. (1979). Construct validity in psychological measurement. Proceedings of US

office of personnel management colloquium on theory and application in education and
employment Princeton New Jersey, pp. 79–91.

Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with

organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
107–122.

Kanter, D. L. & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The Cynical Americans. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Re-

view, 57(2), 106–114.

Law, K. S., Wong, C-S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional

constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741–755.

Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. J. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust

for management: A quasi-field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. J., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

Mishra, A. K. & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing:

The role of trust, empowerment, justice and work redesign. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 567–588.

Morrison, E. W. & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how

psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–
256.

OÕConnell, B. J., Holzman, H., & Armandi, B. R. (1986). Police cynicism and the modes of

adaptation. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14, 307–314.

Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimen-

sional view of attitudes toward organizational change. Academy of Management Re-
view, 25, 783–794.

Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cyni-

cism about organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48–59.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–405.

Schachter, S. & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of

emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 379–399.

Schwab, D. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in organiza-

tional behavior, 2, 3–43.

Spence, J. T., Helmeich, R. L., & Pred, R. S. (1987). Impatience versus achievement striv-

ings in Type A pattern: Differential effects on studentsÕ health and academic achieve-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 522–528.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation

approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.

Strebel, P. (1996 May). Why do employees resist change?. Harvard Business Review: 86–92.
Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M. & Tesluk, P. E. (1996). Organizational cynicism, cynical cultures,

and organizational change. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Applied Behavioral
Sciences, Pennsylvania State University.

Wanberg, C. R. & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a

reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 132–142.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational

change: Measurement, antecedents and correlates. Group and Organization Manage-
ment, 25, 132–153.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are

single-item measures?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.

Wrightsman, L. S. (1992). Assumptions about human nature. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

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

459