Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/ Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model

Tae-Yeol Kim, Thomas S. Bateman, Brad Gilbreath and Lynne M. Andersson Human Relations 2009 62: 1435 originally published online 28 August 2009 DOI: 10.1177/0018726709340822 The online version of this article can be found at: http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/10/1435

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

Additional services and information for Human Relations can be found at: Email Alerts: http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://hum.sagepub.com/content/62/10/1435.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 17, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 28, 2009
Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

What is This?

Human Relations DOI: 10.1177/0018726709340822 Volume 62(10): 14351458 The Author(s), 2009 Reprints and Permissions: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/ journalsPermissions.nav The Tavistock Institute http://hum.sagepub.com

Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model

Tae-Yeol Kim, Thomas S. Bateman, Brad Gilbreath and Lynne M. Andersson

A B S T R AC T

By combining quantitative and qualitative methods of study, we develop a comprehensive model of top management behaviors, perceived management credibility, and employee cynicism and outcomes. Specically, we identify managerial behaviors that affect employees perceptions of two components of top managements credibility trustworthiness and competence and examine how each of those components relates to employee cynicism. Top management competence and trustworthiness relate to different components of employee cynicism (cognitive, affective, and behavioral cynicism), and these dimensions of cynicism differentially relate to organizational commitment and self-assessed job performance. Content analysis of critical incidents revealed that different sets of managerial behaviors generate attributions of competence, incompetence, trustworthiness, and non-trustworthiness. This study and the resulting model open the door to more nely distilled research on management credibility and employee cynicism.

K E Y WO R D S

competence employee cynicism job performance management credibility organizational commitment trustworthiness

1435
Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1436

Human Relations 62(10)

The credibility of business executives always seems to be in question, just as cynical employees appear to be a perpetual managerial challenge (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989; Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Simons, 2002). Many observers have documented and decried the lack of credible leadership in different spheres, from business and politics to civil society and disaster management (e.g. Iacocca, 2007; Schwab, 2007). Credibility is an essential attribute for managers as they seek support and commitment from the public, their organizations, and their teams (Hovland et al., 1953; Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005; Simons, 2002), but this managerial characteristic is apparently in short supply. Cynicism among followers is high, and is seemingly getting higher (Brush, 2006; Schwab, 2007). Some observers depict a current leadership crisis (Sarkar, 2007), although this problem and cynicism toward leaders has been evident for decades (Gardner, 1990) and undoubtedly for centuries. Our research was conducted with the primary purpose of gaining a better understanding of the complex relationships between top management credibility and employee cynicism, and identifying some of the managerial behaviors that predict employees perceptions of (high and low) top management credibility. We used two samples for the study and employed both deductive and inductive techniques to develop and validate a comprehensive behavioral model. The model links employee cynicism and outcomes to perceptions of top management credibility, as driven by specic top management behaviors and broad, actionable behavioral dimensions. Cynicism might be widespread among employees (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989), but as a construct it is inadequately understood. Traditionally studied with a personality, societal, or occupational focus, cynicism more recently has been investigated as an attitude with specic targets including organizational change and employing organizations (e.g. Dean et al., 1998; Stanley et al., 2005; Wanous et al., 2000, 2004). Cynicism appears to take different forms when focused on different targets (Wanous et al., 2004). Andersson and Bateman (1997), for example, found that employees intention to comply with unethical requests was positively related to cynicism toward human nature, but negatively related to cynicism toward the requesting company. As this example demonstrates, studying specic targets is important because of the potential for unique causes and effects that do not necessarily generalize to other targets. Our focus is on the top management of ones employing organization, in part because it is an understudied target, but also because of the management implications of perceptions of top management. As Fralicx and McCauley (2003) noted, employees have seen in the media how top management can destroy a company and, consequently, they not only want to know whos running the ship? and where are they taking us?, but also do they know what theyre doing? and whose interests do they have at heart?

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1437

In an effort to provide a more complete conceptualization of cynicism as an attitude, Dean and colleagues (1998) employed a tripartite framework depicting its cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. More specically, they conceptualized organizational cynicism is an attitude comprised of three primary components: a belief that the organization lacks integrity; a negative affect toward the organization; and a tendency to disparage and criticize the organization (Dean et al., 1998). As an attitudinal state, organizational cynicism is affected by workplace experiences (Naus et al., 2007a, 2007b; Wanous et al., 2000, 2004). In our research, we assume the important and central role of employee cynicism as an attitudinal consequence of top management behavior and as a potential (negative) predictor of employee commitment and job performance (Andersson & Bateman, 1997).

Employee cynicism and outcomes

It is known that employees who hold generally negative attitudes toward their managers and jobs tend to exhibit more negative behavioral work intentions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Investigating a specic behavior, Wanous et al. (2000) found that employees cynical about change and change agents are more prone to le labor grievances in unionized organizations. More broadly, Dean et al. (1998) argued that cynicism often fosters disparaging remarks about the organization and its members, as well as other behaviors that are consistent with negative beliefs and affect. For example, cynical employees are likely to be less emotionally attached to their organizations, as their discontent leads them to believe (or hope) that they will not be there for the long haul. Empirically, employee cynicism has been shown to be negatively related to work motivation (Wanous et al., 2000); in addition, cynical employees are less likely to perform extra-role behaviors on behalf of their organization (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). But although we know generally that employee cynicism toward management can affect employees attitudes and behaviors in the workplace (Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Johnson & OLeary-Kelly, 2003; Pugh et al., 2003; Wanous et al., 2000), we know little about how its three dimensions predict, in particular, organizational commitment and job performance. Each of the three dimensions of employee cynicism is likely to affect organizational commitment and job performance. Affective cynicism involves emotional reactions such as irritation, aggravation, tension, and anxiety (Dean et al., 1998). The management of these emotions might drain the cognitive resources of employees (Ashkanasy et al., 2002; Greenglass et al., 2003; Kahn et al., 2006). Emotions such as aggravation and irritation,

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1438

Human Relations 62(10)

including when they originate from the behavior of top management, are also likely to reduce work motivation and commitment to the organization (Greenglass et al., 2003; Johnson & OLeary-Kelly, 2003). Employees experiencing cognitive cynicism believe that principles are often sacriced to expediency, and that duplicity and self-interest are common in their organization (Dean et al., 1998). Given our focus on top management, this would manifest itself in a belief that the organizations top managers lack fairness, honesty, and sincerity (Dean et al., 1998; Stanley et al., 2005). These beliefs also are likely to have negative effects on job performance and organizational commitment. For example, cognitive cynicism exists when employees believe that their organization doesnt value their contributions or care about them, and accordingly they might be less likely to put forth their best efforts on behalf of their organization. Bernerth et al. (2007) found that employee perceptions of injustice interact with cynicism to predict commitment to organizational change efforts. Similarly, Abraham (2000) found that employee cynicism is negatively associated with organizational commitment in ways that also could reduce performance (sample item: I am willing to put in great effort beyond what normally is expected to keep this organization successful). Behavioral cynicism can likewise inuence both job performance and organizational commitment. Behavioral cynicism will manifest itself in negative, disparaging behavior such as criticism of the organization, sarcastic humor, negative non-verbal behavior, cynical interpretations of organizational events, and pessimistic predictions about the organizations future courses of action (Dean et al., 1998). Such disparaging behaviors would be associated with less emotional attachment to the organization and less feeling that the organization has any personal meaning (Naus et al., 2007b). In addition, employees who disparage their organization and its top management are less likely to devote discretionary efforts to their jobs and are more likely to withhold effort (Kidwell & Robie, 2003). When employees believe that their organization exploits them in an exchange relationship and fails to provide support, they exhibit poor job performance (Lynch et al., 1999). Guided by this literature and logic, we predicted that: Hypothesis 1a: Affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism are negatively associated with job performance. Hypothesis 1b: Affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism are negatively associated with organizational commitment.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1439

Top management credibility and employee cynicism

Managers credibility has been shown to relate positively to their relationships with subordinates (Mayer et al., 1995), employees task performance (Podsakoff & Farh, 1989), and general attitudes toward the organization (Orpen & King, 1989). These studies support the conclusions of Kouzes and Posner (2003, 2005) that a leaders credibility is central to the development of employee loyalty and commitment, while a lack of credibility impedes a leaders effectiveness. We adopted the original denition of credibility developed by Hovland et al. (1953): the extent to which a person is perceived as being trustworthy and competent. This suggests that credibility is an ascribed characteristic that it is multidimensional and subject to the perception of the observer. Trustworthiness and competence have been identied as central facets of credibility among researchers in different literatures, including psychology (Hovland et al., 1953; McGinnies & Ward, 1980), management (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005; Simons, 2002), and communication (Leathers, 1992). While trustworthiness includes being reliable and dependable, competence might be dened as others assessments of a persons skills and abilities in fullling a particular role. The perception of competence, formed through the observation of an individuals job performance (experienced, witnessed, or heard second-hand), requires the observer to make an internal rather than an external attribution (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). One purpose of this study was to conrm the specic constructs comprising the broader variables of interest top management credibility and employee cynicism as well as to discern how these constructs interrelate. In the recent management literature, studies predominantly view cynicism as resulting from circumstances in the work environment that cause employee expectations to be unmet (e.g. Andersson, 1996; Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Bernerth et al., 2007; Cole et al., 2006; Johnson & OLeary-Kelly, 2003; Naus et al., 2007a, 2007b; Pugh et al., 2003; Wanous et al., 2000). When employees expectations are not met, they make attributions about the cause of the unmet expectations. If management is the target of blame, perceptions of managements competence or trustworthiness suffer (Wanous et al., 2004). In other words, employees might decide that management is either unable owing to lack of ability to deliver what they expect, or that management chooses not to deliver and therefore cannot be trusted to do so in the future (Cole et al., 2006; Stanley et al., 2005; Wanous et al., 2004). Consistent with this perspective, employee cynicism toward organizational change efforts often stems from employee attributions that management was not competent in implementing past changes (Stanley et al., 2005;

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1440

Human Relations 62(10)

Wanous et al., 2000). Likewise, more generalized employee cynicism toward management has been shown to increase when management was perceived as contributing to the loss of market share (Andersson & Bateman, 1997), which employees might regard as an indicator of managerial incompetence (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005). Employees also become cynical toward management when managers are not trustworthy. Bateman et al. (1992) found that as a result of watching the apparent untrustworthy (and incompetent) behavior of General Motors CEO Roger Smith in the lm Roger and Me, residents of both the United States and Japan were found to be more cynical toward Roger Smith and General Motors. This example also suggests that perceptions of trustworthiness and competence might co-vary, and that one might inuence the other. But they are clearly different constructs, no doubt with at least some different antecedents and perhaps with differing consequences. To restate, our general premise was that employees hold cynical attitudes when top management lacks credibility, driven by perceptions of both untrustworthiness and incompetence. One or both perceptions will take a toll on employee cynicism in terms of cognition (thinking, for example, you cant depend on them), affect (for example, feeling furious), and behavior (e.g. making derogatory comments). Hence, we predicted direct effects such that: Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of top management trustworthiness are negatively associated with employees levels of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism. Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of top management competence are negatively associated with employees levels of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism. Summarizing, we predicted that employee cynicism would be associated with employee outcomes in the form of organizational commitment and job performance, and that top management credibility (both trustworthiness and competence) would be associated with employee cynicism. As noted, credibility (our hypothesized predictor of cynicism) has been found to predict commitment and job performance (our hypothesized outcomes of cynicism) (Orpen & King, 1989; Podsakoff & Farh, 1989). Based on the earlier discussion and this summary, employee cynicism thus becomes a likely but untested path from top management credibility to employee outcomes. In other words, we expected employee cynicism to mediate those relationships. The resultant mediation hypothesis is:

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1441

Hypothesis 3: The cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism mediate the negative relationships between top management credibility and employees organizational commitment and job performance. Thus, although the aforementioned studies have established the importance of management credibility and employee cynicism, several important questions have yet to be addressed empirically. First, the research has generally given more attention to targets other than top management as a potential cause of employee cynicism. Second, the interrelationships among the two factors comprising credibility and the three factors comprising employee cynicism have not been assessed. Third, the specic managerial behaviors that make employees perceive their top management as credible (or not) have yet to be identied. While it is understood that credibility is derived from trustworthiness and competence, the array of specic behaviors that contribute to the perception of credibility is undoubtedly broad (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2005) and remains underspecied. Given its important consequences, a better understanding of the behaviors that affect credibility is needed. We therefore not only tested the hypothesized interrelationships, but also analyzed additional qualitative data to develop a comprehensive model linking top management behaviors and credibility with employee cynicism and outcomes.

Method
With the dual goals of 1) testing our hypotheses empirically, and 2) identifying top management behaviors that predict perceptions of credibility, we collected and analyzed two data sets. The rst used a traditional questionnaire method to measure the constructs of interest, assess their dimensionality, ensure construct validity, and empirically test the hypothesized relationships via structural equation modeling. The second data set was qualitative in nature, and was used to inductively determine the dimensions of top management behavior that drive employee perceptions of (un)trustworthiness and (in)competence. For this data set, we asked the rst sample, which supplied the questionnaire data for multivariate analysis, to also generate behavioral indicators of (high and low) top management credibility. We then used a panel of judges to identify, using content analysis, the broader behavioral dimensions comprising top management credibility, and a large independent sample of employed adults (Sample 2) to validate the items.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1442

Human Relations 62(10)

Data set I and results

The rst data set included 144 questionnaires from two sources: a) employees of an organization within the transportation industry (n = 42, 72% response rate), and b) evening MBA students currently employed in a variety of organizations (n = 102, 64% response rate). For the transportation industry employees, participants convened in a conference room where the study was described to them and the questionnaires were distributed and completed. For the MBA student participants, data were collected during class time. All participants were told that they would not be asked to place their names anywhere on the survey, and that their individual results would not be analyzed or reported to their employers. Although some managers and professionals from the transportation industry participated, most respondents in this group were blue-collar employees. In contrast, most of the MBA student respondents were professional or technical employees. In both samples, respondents were asked to consider specically the top management of their employing organization. When the two samples were combined for further analyses, we compared them with regard to age, gender, race, job level, work status (i.e. part-time versus full-time), and education level. We found signicant differences between the two subsamples in age and gender. Additionally, we found that age was signicantly correlated with organizational commitment (r = .19, p < .05), and that gender was signicantly associated with selfassessed job performance (r = .18, p < .05), with women reporting higher job performance. Therefore, we controlled for age and gender in the subsequent analyses. Of the respondents, 43 percent were female, 83 percent were full-time employees, 89 percent had at least a college education, and 54 percent were in non-managerial positions. Their average age was 34 years (SD = 10.12). All of the questionnaire variables were assessed, unless otherwise indicated, using seven-point Likert-type scales (where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree).

Top management trustworthiness and competence

We measured the two dimensions of top management credibility, trustworthiness and competence, using semantic differential scales with eight adjective pairs (four addressing trustworthiness and four representing competence) developed by Leathers (1992). We asked the respondents to indicate their opinions of their top managers along the continuum between each pair of adjectives. The items for competence were Competent vs
Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1443

Incompetent, Informed vs Uninformed, Qualied vs Unqualied, and Intelligent vs Unintelligent. The items for trustworthiness were Honest vs Dishonest, Straightforward vs Shifty, Trustworthy vs Untrustworthy, and Sincere vs Insincere. Employee cynicism To measure employee cynicism, we used the 11 items developed by Brandes et al. (1999). The cognitive component is dened as the belief that top management lacks integrity. The items were I believe top management says one thing and does another, Top managements policies, goals, and practices, seem to have little in common, When top management says it is going to do something, I wonder if it will really happen, and Top management expects one thing of its employees, but rewards another. The affective component is the emotional reactions associated with cynical attitudes toward top management. The items were When I think about top management, I feel irritation, When I think about top management, I feel aggravation, When I think about top management, I feel tension, and When I think about top management, I experience anxiety. The behavioral component has to do with the practice of making harmful statements about top management. The items were I criticize top managements practices and policies with others, I often talk to others about the way things are run at top management, and I complain about how things happen at top management to friends outside the organization. Organizational commitment We measured organizational commitment using Allen and Meyers (1990) ve-item scale of affective organizational commitment. Examples are I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization (R) and This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. Job performance To measure self-assessed job performance, respondents were asked to assess how other people generally would rate their performance on the job. We employed four items from Welbourne et al.s (1998) role-based performance scale assessing quantity of work output and quality of work output. To assess the discriminant validities, we conducted conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all the seven variables using LISREL 8.30 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). We used three-item parcels for each construct to reduce the number of indicators (Hui et al., 1999; Ilies & Scott, 2006). The results show
Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1444

Human Relations 62(10)

that the seven-factor model ts the data well (2 (168, N = 144) = 223.26, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05, comparative t index (CFI) = .97, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .96, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .06). In addition, we conducted multi-group CFA to test whether the two subsamples in our study can be legitimately combined to examine structural relationships among the constructs studied (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Specically, we tested metric invariance by constraining the factor loadings to be the same across subsamples. According to Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998: 80), metric invariance provides a stronger test of invariance by introducing the concept of equal metrics or scale intervals across samples. The result show that the seven-factor model was metrically equivalent across the two subsamples (2 (336, G = 2) = 482, 94, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .92, TLI = 90, and SRMR = .10). Thus, the data from the two subsamples can be combined legitimately to test structural relationships among the constructs. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for all measures. All reliability estimates exceeded .70; the average was .85. To test the hypotheses, we conducted structural equation analysis of the relationships among top management trustworthiness and competence, the three dimensions of cynicism, job performance, and organizational commitment, as shown in Table 2 (Model 1) using LISREL 8. As recommended by Preacher and Hayes (in press), the residuals associated with the three types of cynicism were permitted to co-vary. As shown in Table 2, Model 1 represented a good t to the data, indicating that the observed covariance matrix reasonably t the hypothesized model (2 (206, N = 144) = 324.56, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .06, and SRMR = .07). Our rst set of hypotheses proposed that the constructs comprising employee cynicism would be negatively related both to self-assessed performance (H1a) and organizational commitment (H1b). As seen in Figure 1, affective cynicism was negatively and signicantly associated with selfassessed job performance ( = .40, p < .01, respectively), and cognitive cynicism was negatively and signicantly associated with organizational commitment ( = .42, p < .01). Behavioral cynicism was positively and signicantly associated with self-assessed job performance ( = .33, p < .05). Other relationships were not statistically signicant. Thus, Hypothesis 1a and 1b received partial support. Our second set of hypotheses postulated that the factors comprising top management credibility would be negatively related to the multiple constructs comprising employee cynicism. As shown in Figure 1, trustworthiness was negatively and signicantly associated with the cognitive,

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Table 1
SD 10.12 .50 1.23 1.56 1.40 1.73 1.59 .56 1.31 .14 .13 .03 .02 .07 .19 .13 .19 .11 .06 .05 .01 .10 .18 .14 (.95) .65 .67 .45 .05 .45 (.82) .64 .40 .02 .39 (.95) .48 .07 .36 (.88) .63 .49 .57 .36 .02 .28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities for study variables

9

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Age Gendera Competence Trustworthiness Cognitive cynicism Affective cynicism Behavioral cynicism Job performance Organizational commitment

33.85 .43 5.10 4.21 4.00 3.61 3.56 4.20 3.76

(.77) .16 .19

(.78) .02

(.76)

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Note. (N = 146). Reliabilities are in parentheses. For all correlations above .16, p .05; and above .21, p .01. a Males were coded as 0 and females were coded as 1.

1445

1446

Human Relations 62(10)

Table 2
2 df .06 RMSEA 324.56** 209 2 SRMR .07

Comparison of structural equation models

CFI .93 TLI .92

Model and structure

Model 1 a: Competence + trustworthiness cognitive, affective, and behavioral cynicism job performance + organizational commitment 320.69** 205 3.87 .06

Model 2: Competence + trustworthiness cognitive, affective, and behavioral cynicism job performance + organizational commitment (Direct effects: Competence + trustworthiness job performance + organizational commitment)

.07

.93

.92

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Baseline model. * p < .05; ** p < .01

Top management behaviors

Top management credibility Employee cynicism Employee outcomes

Behaviors indicating competence Competence .28** .01 .01 .10 .06 Cognitive cynicism Organizational commitment .42**

Behaviors indicating incompetence

Affective cynicism .71** .13 .40**

Behaviors indicating trustworthiness .41**

.46**

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Trustworthiness

Behavioral cynicism

.33*

Job performance

Behaviors indicating untrustworthiness

* p < .05; ** p < .01

Figure 1

Framework for top management credibility and employee cynicism

1447

1448

Human Relations 62(10)

affective, and behavioral dimensions of employee cynicism ( = .71, p < .01; = .46, p < .01; and = .41, p < .01, respectively). Competence was negatively and signicantly associated with the affective component of cynicism, but not with the cognitive and behavioral components ( = .28, p < .01; = .06, ns; and = .10, ns, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 2a, concerning perceptions of top management trustworthiness, was fully supported. Hypothesis 2b, regarding top management competence, was supported by only cognitive cynicism. We next tested whether employee cynicism mediated the effects of management competence and trustworthiness on organizational commitment and self-assessed job performance using a chi-square difference test (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hui et al., 1999). Specically, we compared the mediated model (Model 1) to a full model that included the direct effects (Model 2) in Table 2. Then we tested whether or not the 2 difference between the two models was signicant. A non-signicant 2 difference indicates a full mediation effect (Hui et al., 1999). As shown in Table 2, the difference in chi-square between Model 1 and Model 2 was not signicant (i.e. 2 = 4.36, d.f. = 4, ns), and the other t indices were unaffected by including the additional four paths in the model (RMSEA = .05, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, and SRMR = .07). In addition, we investigated the specic indirect effect associated with each putative mediator using Sobels (1982) test. The results show that affective cynicism signicantly mediated the relationships between competence and job performance (i.e. = .11, p < .05) and between trustworthiness and job performance ( = .18, p < .01). Cognitive cynicism also signicantly mediated the relationship between trustworthiness and organizational commitment ( = .30, p < .01). In addition, behavioral cynicism signicantly mediated the relationship between trustworthiness and job performance ( =.14, p < .01). However, cynicism did not signicantly mediate the other relationships.1 Thus, the results provided support for four of the 12 possible mediation effects. To this point, we had examined the relationships among the two dimensions of top management credibility, the three dimensions of employee cynicism, and self-assessed job performance and organizational commitment. Now that we had established the dimensionalities and predictive validities in a limited nomological network, we moved on to the second goal of our research, which was to gain a better understanding of the types of behavior that lead employees to view managers as credible or non-credible (competent or incompetent, and trustworthy or untrustworthy). These constitute variables that are exogenous to the Figure 1 model and essential for creating fuller understanding and for offering specic managerial prescriptions.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1449

Data set II and results

In addition to asking the rst sample to respond to the questionnaire measures, we also asked them using the critical incident technique to identify behaviors that caused them to attribute to their top management the following four characteristics: trustworthiness, untrustworthiness, competence, and incompetence. We asked not only about competence and trustworthiness, but also about incompetence and untrustworthiness, for several reasons. First, there is still no agreement regarding the domain of managerial behaviors that promote and detract from perceptions of competence and trustworthiness. Second, the absence of competence might not be equivalent to incompetence, and the lack of trustworthiness might not be equivalent to untrustworthiness. Some authors have argued that distrust and trust are distinct entities, rather than at opposite ends of a continuum, and that they have different causes and effects (Lewicki et al., 1998; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). As Clarke and Watson (1995) noted, no existing data-analytic technique can remedy serious deciencies in an item pool . . . Subsequent psychometric analysis can identify weak, unrelated items that should be dropped from the emerging scale, but are powerless to detect content that should have been included but was not. (p. 311) Therefore, seeking to minimize the risk of item-pool deciency, we asked for incidents provoking perceptions of trustworthiness, untrustworthiness, competence, and incompetence. We then extracted the managerial behaviors embedded in those incidents. This process resulted in the documentation of 173 behaviors: 43 for competence, 43 for incompetence, 43 for trustworthiness, and 44 for untrustworthiness. Next we employed initial and conrmatory sorting processes in which eight sorters viewed and categorized the 173 items. Three of our sorters were organizational behavior professors, one was a university administrator with a PhD in management, one was an experienced human resources manager, one was a management professor, and two were management doctoral students. The sorting process used well-established procedures for organizing behavioral items into manageable and useful dimensions, allowed us to better understand the categories of behavior that employees see as relevant to top management trustworthiness and competence, and provided a structure for measuring, evaluating, and improving managerial credibility (Anderson & Wilson, 1997).

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1450

Human Relations 62(10)

The sorting analysis resulted in 34 behavioral dimensions: eight dimensions of behaviors indicating that a manager is competent (36 items), eight dimensions indicating that a manager is incompetent (37 items), nine dimensions indicating that a manager is trustworthy (36 items), and nine dimensions indicating that a manager is untrustworthy (34 items). We deleted 30 items due to disagreement among the sorters, resulting in 143 behavioral items. Next, in order to cross-validate items generated in the open-ended responses provided by the rst sample, to establish the broader dimensions, and to further develop a more comprehensive model, we created a second questionnaire to administer to a second sample (Sample 2). A total of 145 respondents from various organizations, different from Sample 1, participated in this survey. Half of the data were collected from employed MBA students, while the other half were collected during a management training session in a service-industry organization. All of the respondents were fulltime employees; their average age was 37 years old (SD = 7.72) and average work experience was 15 years (SD = 7.74). Of the respondents, 40 percent were female, and 42 percent were in non-managerial positions. The Sample 2 respondents were asked to assess each item generated by Sample 1 describing top managements competence, incompetence, trustworthiness, and untrustworthiness. For instance, for the behaviors identied as indicative of competence, the respondents were asked to assess the extent to which the items would make them think of their top management as competent, using a nine-point scale (1 = Not at all competent and 9 = Very competent). This approach has been used to assess how well specic items represent broader constructs (Edwards & ONeill, 1998). We also used these data to examine internal reliabilities and to determine which general dimensions are most strongly associated with specic behaviors indicating that managers are (in)competent and (un)trustworthy. Next, we used the data collected from Sample 2 to calculate the internal reliabilities to assess each dimensions unidimensionality. On the basis of those analyses, 19 of the 143 original items were deleted because they reduced a dimensions reliability. Six dimensions of behaviors indicate that a manager is competent (31 items): outcome emphasis (eight items), future emphasis (four items), employee emphasis (ve items), go-getter (ve items), effective communication (ve items), and education and experience (ve items). Seven dimensions indicate that a manager is incompetent (34 items): lack of job knowledge (six items), failing to take action (six items), ego-driven (three items), failing to appreciate employees (four items), creating confusion (six items), poor communication (ve items), and close-mindedness (four items). Seven dimensions indicate that a manager is trustworthy (29 items):

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1451

consistent communication and behavior (three items), protecting employees (three items), embodying organizations mission (three items), consultative behavior (seven items), open communication (ve items), valuing employees (ve items), and supportive behavior (three items). Seven dimensions indicate that a manager is untrustworthy (30 items): promoting unethical climate (three items), dishonest communication (four items), self-serving behavior (seven items), behavioral inconsistency (ve items), guarded communication (three items), insufcient employee input (ve items), and treating employees as expendable (three items).2

Discussion
Overall, our results extend recent research on employee cynicism (e.g. Bernerth et al., 2007; Cole et al., 2006; Kahn et al., 2006; Naus et al., 2007a, 2007b; Stanley et al., 2005). Whereas much research investigates cynicism as an attitude toward organizational change and employing organizations (e.g. Naus et al., 2007a; Stanley et al., 2005; Wanous et al., 2000, 2004), we focus on understanding how employee perceptions of top management relate to employee cynicism, and on how cynicism relates to employees organizational commitment and self-assessed job performance. The data yield 1) the model shown in Figure 1, depicting the interrelationships among top management credibility, the subdimensions of employee cynicism, and two employee outcomes, and 2) top management behaviors and top management credibility. Several specic conclusions emerge. First, the ndings that affective cynicism was negatively associated with self-assessed job performance and organizational commitment, cognitive cynicism was negatively associated with organizational commitment but not self-assessed performance, and behavioral cynicism was positively associated with self-assessed performance, provide support for Dean et al.s (1998) argument for the value of distinguishing among the three dimensions of employee cynicism. Second, low top management trustworthiness was signicantly associated with all three dimensions of employee cynicism. Top management incompetence was also signicantly associated with affective cynicism, but not with cognitive and behavioral cynicism. Perhaps perceived top management incompetence as opposed to low trustworthiness or the perceived incompetence of ones immediate manager has little to do with an employees daily work life and therefore is less likely to create signicant vulnerability, except when the consequences of incompetence are extreme such that people lose employment or other nancial stakes.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1452

Human Relations 62(10)

Although some of the cynicism dimensions were associated with outcomes as expected, one result was not predicted: behavioral cynicism had a positive association with self-assessed performance. This relationship has several possible explanations. One is that high job performance might give people freedom to say things that low performers are not willing or able to say. A second is the operation of a third variable causing the positive relationship; for example, behavioral cynicism and self-rated performance might covary with self-esteem, with self-esteem driving the other two variables (Naus et al., 2007b). Future research needs to conrm this possibility. Regarding the behavioral indicators of management trustworthiness and competence, some are identiable in previous theories and models (for example, outcome-focused vs employee-focused in the leadership literature, and consultative behavior in decision-making models). On the other hand, other indicators constitute understudied behaviors that are worthy of investigation in their own right. As examples, future emphasis, failing to take action, go-getter, creating confusion, close-mindedness, protecting employees, and some forms of self-serving behavior have been studied minimally or not at all. Any of these behaviors, alone or in combination with others, can have important repercussions and are therefore worthy of further inquiry. Some of the behavioral indicators are mirror images: for example, effective communication and education as indicators of competence, and poor communication and lack of education as indicators of incompetence. But more often, the behaviors employees identied as contributing to their attributions of competence differed qualitatively from those conveying incompetence; this was likewise the case with trustworthiness and nontrustworthiness. These results suggest that the constructs, which often are presumed to anchor opposite ends of the same continuum, might rather be asymmetric or discontinuous. Just as positive and negative affect have been demonstrated to be orthogonal dimensions (Watson et al., 1999), and trust and distrust have been argued to be asymmetric (Kramer, 1999; Lewicki et al., 1998), the perceived attributes of trustworthiness and competence also might not be unidimensional. Perhaps other constructs in our eld that traditionally and intuitively are presumed to be unidimensional should be explored for potential asymmetries, and for the accompanying theoretical, empirical, and prescriptive ramications.

Limitations and implications for future research

Despite the use of CFA to show the distinctiveness of the measures, common method variance (CMV) is a potential limitation. We assessed CMVs

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1453

potential impact using Lindell and Whitneys (2001) marker-variable partial correlation technique. A measure of creativity (Welbourne et al., 1998) served as the marker variable, which met all criteria proposed by Lindell and Whitney, such that r ranged from .02 to .46. All of the original signicant correlations remained after removing the CMV, and the differences between the corrected correlations and the original ones were not signicant, suggesting that the CMV effects did not explain the relationships. In addition, the primary variables of interest in this study are perceptual and attitudinal; as such, they (excluding job performance) are best measured via employee assessments (Spector, 2006). Nonetheless, studies using alternative means of assessing management trustworthiness and competence, such as content analysis of corporate documents, eld observation, and in-depth interviews, would provide additional perspectives (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Denite conclusions regarding causality cannot be drawn, as the study was not longitudinal and the open-ended questions were retrospective. The implied causal links remain merely suggestive until veried with longitudinal data. In two separate longitudinal studies, both Wanous et al. (2000) and Bommer et al. (2005) found that supervisory role effectiveness (e.g. caring about employees) and transformational leadership signicantly inuences employee cynicism with regard to organizational change. Longitudinal data collection would allow testing of the causal directionalities among the variables studied here. Additional limitations arise from characteristics of the data used in this study. Job performance would of course be measured more validly with objective data or assessments from knowledgeable observers. We did not collect data on the possible situational factors that might inuence employee cynicism and, as a result, we cannot rule out the operation of attribution errors (blaming other people such as top management, rather than themselves or situational factors not the fault of top management). In addition, the respondents might have differed signicantly from non-respondents, and the anonymous nature of our surveys made it impossible to conduct a responsenon-response analysis. However, given that our response rate was reasonably high (i.e. 72% in the transportation industry organization and 64% in the MBA sample are consistent with or higher than response rates in other studies of employee cynicism), the data should not be as problematic as if the response rates had been lower. Finally, the managerial behaviors that lead to a workers perceptions of managerial (un)trustworthiness and (in)competence might not be universally applicable across individuals and contexts. For example, the same behaviors might not be interpreted in the same ways by core workers, temporary and contract workers, customers, investors, analysts, and other

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1454

Human Relations 62(10)

stakeholders. Future studies should examine how these different audiences differentially interpret managerial behaviors. In addition, differences in general societal values or norms regulate the relationships between subordinates and supervisors across countries (Kim et al., 2007). Thus the same supervisor behaviors can be interpreted differently across countries and have different consequences. For example, attributions of trustworthiness to unfamiliar trustees were found to differ depending on the trustors national culture (Branzei et al., 2007).

Managerial implications and conclusion

For individual managers, the practical implications begin with the recognition that employee cynicism is an important attitude with signicant consequences (for a thorough discussion, see Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). It is an attitudinal state, not just a stable trait, and therefore can change over time and with changing circumstances, rendering it manageable for better or worse. Moreover, it is of practical importance that both management trustworthiness and competence (or lack thereof) exhibit paths to important employee outcomes. Both dimensions of credibility relate to self-assessed job performance through affective cynicism, and trustworthiness relates to organizational commitment via cognitive cynicism. However, it is one thing to acknowledge these relationships in the abstract; it is another to identify the attributes and behaviors that have an impact, and yet another to apply this knowledge to personal change. Managers can benet from knowing the types of behavior that generate perceptions of competence and trustworthiness. To these ends, we identied the behavioral indicators of top management credibility in this study. Exhibiting credibility-enhancing behaviors and refraining from credibility-detracting behaviors can help generate individual and collective progress toward mitigating employee cynicism and its negative effects. But it must also be recognized that cynicism, at least to a point and properly expressed, can be functional (Dean et al., 1998). It can help people ensure that others dont take advantage of them, and potentially help managers and organizations benet from constructive voice and from appropriate resistance to inappropriate directives (Naus et al., 2007b). In one experiment, participants cynical toward the employing organization were less likely to comply with unethical requests than those who were less cynical (Andersson & Bateman, 1997). Such useful consequences of cynicism will be more likely with supportive cultures and constructive management behaviors, including those that convey competence and trustworthiness.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1455

Acknowledgement
The work described in this article was fully supported by a grant from City University of Hong Kong (Project No. 9360108). The authors would like to thank Associate Editor Rob Briner and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Notes
1 As a supplementary analysis, we tested separate simple mediation models because specic indirect effects might be attenuated to the extent that the mediators are correlated. The results show that affective and behavioral cynicism signicantly mediated the relationships between trustworthiness and organizational commitment ( = .15, p < .01; = .08, p < .05, respectively) in addition to the signicant mediation effects found in the multiple mediation models. All behavioral items for each dimension can be obtained from the rst author.

References
Abraham, R. Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 2000, 126, 26992. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 888918. Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1990, 63, 118. Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended tow-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103, 41123. Anderson, L. & Wilson, S. Critical incident technique. In D.L. Whetzel & G.R. Wheaton (Eds), Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology. Palo Alto, CA: DaviesBlack, 1997, pp. 89112. Andersson, L.M. Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 1996, 49, 1395418. Andersson, L.M. & Bateman, T.S. Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1997, 18, 44969. Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J. & Hrtel, C.E.J. Managing emotions in a changing workplace. In N.M. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe, & C.E.J. Hrtel (Eds), Managing emotions in the workplace. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 2002, pp. 324. Bateman, T.S., Sakano, T. & Fujita, M. Roger, me, and my attitude: Film propaganda and cynicism toward corporate leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992, 77, 76871. Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S. & Walker, H.J. Justice, cynicism, and commitment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2007, 43, 30326. Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. & Rubin, R.S. Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26, 73353. Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R. & Dean, J. Does employee cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Paper presented at the Eastern Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA, 1999. Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I. & Camp, R.D. Culture-specic signs of trust in emergent relationships. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2007, 104, 6182.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1456

Human Relations 62(10)

Brush, S. A vote of no condence in the nations leaders. U.S. News & World Report, 30 October 2006, p. 56. Clarke, L.A. & Watson, D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 1995, 7, 30919. Cole, M.S., Bruch, H. & Vogel, B. Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006, 27, 46384. Dean Jr, J.W., Brandes, P. & Dharwadkar, R. Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 34152. Edwards, J.R. & ONeill, M.R. The construct validity of scores on the ways of coping questionnaire: Conrmatory analysis of alternative factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998, 58, 95583. Fralicx, R. & McCauley, D. U.S. workers feel pride in jobs, organizations, but dont trust managers. Journal of Compensation and Benets, May/June 2003, pp. 425. Gardner, J.W. On leadership. New York: Free Press, 1990. Greenglass, E.R., Burke, R.J. & Moore, K.A. Reactions to increased workload: Effects on professional efcacy of nurses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2003, 52, 58097. Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. & Kelly, H.H. Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1953. Hui, C., Law, K.S. & Chen, Z.X. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extrarole performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1999, 77, 321. Iacocca, L. Where have all the leaders gone? New York: Simon & Shuster, 2007. Ilies, R. & Scott, B.A. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49, 56175. Johnson, J.L. & OLeary-Kelly, A.M. The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003, 24, 62747. Jreskog, K. & Srbom, D. LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International, Inc., 1996. Kahn, J.H., Schneider, K.T., Jenkins-Henkelman, T.M. & Moyle, L.L. Emotional social support and job burnout among high-school teachers: Is it all due to dispositional affectivity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2006, 27, 793807. Kanter, D.L. & Mirvis, P.H. The cynical Americans. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1989. Kidwell, R.E., Jr & Robie, C. Withholding effort in organizations: Toward development and validation of a measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2003, 17, 53761. Kim, T.-Y., Wang, C., Kondo, M. & Kim, T.-H. Conict management styles: East Asia differences. International Journal of Conict Management, 2007, 18, 2341. Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. Leading in cynical times. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2005, 14, 35764. Kramer, R.M. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review Psychology, 1999, 50, 56998. Leathers, D.G. Successful nonverbal communication: Principle and applications. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. & Bies, R.J. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 43859. Lindell, M.K. & Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 11421.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

Kim et al. Top management credibility and employee cynicism

1457

Lynch, P.D., Eisenberger, R. & Armeli, S. Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84, 46783. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20, 70934. McGinnies, E. & Ward, C.D. Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and competence as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 46772. Naus, F., van Iterson, A. & Roe, R. Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees responses to adverse conditions in the workplace. Human Relations, 2007a, 60, 683718. Naus, F., van Iterson, A. & Roe, R. Value incongruence, job autonomy, and organizationbased self-esteem: A self-based perspective on organizational cynicism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2007b, 16, 195219. Orpen, C. & King, G. Effects of superiors feedback, credibility, and competence on subordinates reactions: An experimental study. Psychological Reports, 1989, 64, 6456. Podsakoff, P.M. & Farh, L. Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989, 44, 4567. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. & Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88, 879903. Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, in press. Pugh, D.S., Skarlicki, D.P. & Passell, B.S. After the fall: Layoff victims trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2003, 76, 20112. Sarkar, C. Will the leadership crisis continue? Strategy World.org, 1 January 2007. Schwab, N. A national crisis of condence. U.S. News & World Report, 19 November 2007, p. 46. Simons, T. Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 2002, 13, 1835. Sitkin, S.B. & Roth, N.L. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 1993, 4, 36792. Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic condence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association, 1982, pp. 290312. Spector, P.E. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 2006, 9, 22132. Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. & Topolnytsky, L. Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business & Psychology, 2005, 19. 42959. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. & Baumgartner, H. Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 1998, 25, 7890. Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. & Austin, J.T. Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group and Organization Management, 2000, 25, 13253. Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. & Austin, J.T. Cynicism about organizational change: An attribution process perspective. Psychological Reports, 2004, 93, 142134. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J. & Tellegen, A. The two general activation systems of affect: Structural ndings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 76, 82038. Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E. & Erez, A. The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 1998, 41, 54055.

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012

1458

Human Relations 62(10)

Tae-Yeol Kim is an Assistant Professor in Management Department, City University of Hong Kong. He received his PhD in Organizational Behavior in Management from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His current interests include organizational justice, cross-cultural psychology, creativity, leadership, and proactivity. His articles have appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Journal of Organizational Behavior, among others. [E-mail: bestkty@cityu.edu.hk] Thomas S. Bateman is Bank of America Professor and Management Area Coordinator in the McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia. His current work includes projects on leaders as problem-solvers and motivators of problem-solving by followers, the pursuit of long-term goals, and personal agency as it affects workplace relationships and psychological well-being. His articles have covered a range of topics including organizational citizenship behavior, proactive behavior, and the goal hierarchies of top executives. He is co-author (with Scott Snell) of Management: Leading and Collaborating in a Competitive World (McGraw-Hill/Irwin), has worked with many organizations around the world, and is director of his schools undergraduate minor in leadership. [E-mail: tsb3c@comm.virginia.edu] Brad Gilbreath is an Assistant Professor at the Hasan School of Business at Colorado State University Pueblo. His research interests include the effects of supervisor behavior and performance-based pay, and factors affecting university student well-being. His work has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Work & Stress, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Management Education, and other journals. [E-mail: brad.gilbreath@colostate-pueblo.edu] Lynne M. Andersson is an Associate Professor of Human Resource Management at Temple Universitys Fox School of Business. She received her PhD in Organizational Behavior/Social Issues in Management from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research, published in outlets such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and Human Relations, focuses on the dark side of business organizations. In particular, shes been examining some social maladies that are arguably associated with late capitalism (cynicism and incivility) as well as the role of social activism in countering capitalist barriers to sustainability. [E-mail: landerss@temple.edu]

Downloaded from hum.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on March 2, 2012