ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 39 (Number 26) Year 2018 • Page 27

Organizational cynicism - An exploration analysis-case: Workers in the city of Cartagena de Indias (Colombia)

Cinismo organizacional - Un análisis de exploración-caso: Trabajadores en la ciudad de Cartagena de Indias (Colombia)

Juan Carlos ROBLEDO Fernández 1; Omaira Cecilia MARTÍNEZ Moreno 2; Andrés Felipe MERLANO Lombana 3

Received: 08/02/2018 • Approved: 30/03/2018

Content

1. Introduction

2. Revision of literature

3. Methodology

4. Results and discussion

5. Conclusions

Bibliographical References

1. Introduction

Organizational cynicism is a research approach from the field of Organizational Behavior. Its study has been developing different perspectives from the 60s, some of them related to professional occupation, others study the cynical attitudes regarding the worker-boss relation. It is based on the theories of attribution, the expectations and theories of social exchange in which events of an emotional, cognitive and behavioral nature are involved. In either case, the cynical attitude developed within organizations is perceived as a critical and negative factor for the ideal performance of organizations.

In the case of the present study, an exploration approach surrounding organizational cynicism in 334 Colombian workers located within enterprises in Cartagena de Indias. Methodologically, an Attitudinal scale, assessed through the Likert technique, is used, through which variables of demographic order are measured within the organization, along with three categories or factors: Cynical ideas, Cynical behavior and Cynical emotions. The results are then modeled under the technique of Varimax exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis. The research is supported by the instrument used by Solana Salessi, of the Universidad del Rosario in Argentina.  This instrument is adapted to Colombia, obtaining functional, semantic and cultural equivalences.

The results exposed in the Discussion Section account for the fact that, in Colombian enterprises, there is the practice of organizational Cynicism, which is found in moderate levels, but which nevertheless invite to keeping an eye on this fact which negatively attacks the good development of an organizational culture and therefore, the good performance of an enterprise.

The study also evidences and confirms the existing relations between the behavior of one who exercises management or leadership, and the way their managerial practice is perceived by the employees. It is clear that the Cynical attitude formed by the workers is linked with a lack of integrity in those who exercise high management positions in the enterprise, besides them projecting the problem to the identity of the enterprise as an organization in which unfair acts, incoherencies and inappropriate behavior happens, which hurt the appropriation of the worker and the mission of the enterprise.

In any case, it is evidenced that organizational Cynicism is a negative factor, and that its presence within organizations represents a challenge in the field of study of organizational behavior, and that its study must keep on deepening while associated with disciplines such as Sociology, Psychology and Organizational Anthropology. The challenge to avoid workers depersonalizing from their work in relation to the enterprise they work for.

2. Revision of literature

2.1  Background

Cynicism as a school of thought has its origins in Ancient Greece during the Vth century B.C., with Anthistenes (445-360), a disciple of Socrates, whose ideas were spread by Diogenes from Sinope (404-303), “generating for more than ten centuries multiple vocations of cynical philosophers”(Zapata, 2009, p.86).  The characteristic of these philosophers was distrust, disdain and critics towards institutions such as the church, the government and the social traditions of the time. Their thought was publically expressed through satire, diatribes and actions. The term Cynicism comes from Latin Cynismus and from Greek Kynosarge, which references the Cynosarges, better known in Ancient Greek literature as  the "Dog Mausoleum", place where Greek Philosophers affiliated with the school of Cynicism got together. However, for the case study performed and presented in this article, Cynicism is approached from a perspective of organizational behavior, studied from the Angle of worker-boss relations (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006), a Cynical attitude towards someone or something in the context of organizations.

From an epistemological point of view, this concept, according to Zapata (2009, p.83) quoting René Bedard (2003) his Philosophical Rhombus, is structured under four philosophical dimensions: a). Practice, in which the cynical behavior may be manifest in a language laden with humor, hostility, sarcasm, mocking laughter and provocation; b). Criteria of validity, it is observed by the lack of coherence between thought, words and actions; c). Fundamental Values, uses resistance, impassiveness, evil and lies; d). Founding principles, expressed by irony, scandal, exaggeration and an artificial dogmatism.  Therefore, the approach of the study of organizational cynicism rests on serious scientific criteria within organizations in which both psychological an sociological aspects may be involved, in which the collective action within organizations is built. 

The first studies that approached the relations between cynicism and work date from 1960, from a seminal work by Niederhoffer (1967) about cynicism in Police Institutions in New York. Since then, this has been developing its tradition from the 80s, finding registers of research carried out on Police Organizations (O´Connell, Holzman & Armandi, 1986; Regoli, Crank & Culbertson, 1989; it gathers strength in the 90s with efforts to define its construct and with the development of instruments for its measuring (Tokgöz & Yilmaz, 2008; Chen, 2016);  in health organizations (Nafei, 2013; Volpe, Mohammed, Shapiro & Dellasega, 2014); Social Service organizations (Gilmonte, Salanova & Schaufeli, 2005). Also to be found are the works of Cox & Didier (2010), carried out in three Chilean enterprises in which the authors established the influence that the worker's perceptions have on work security and power conflicts. The two most interesting conclusions of this study are: a). When workers have a greater perception of conflicts of power, there is a bigger presence of cynicism among them, b). The greater the perception of work security, cynicism tends to decrease. On the other hand, Pino,Marti & Valdenegro (2012, p.12) explored the relation between leadership and cynicism under the presence of trust and conflict and perceived organizational justice, demonstrating that leadership is a significant predictive variable of organizational cynicism.

In this same line of research tradition on cynicism are found the works of Scott & Zweig (2016, p.16), in which the authors established that organizational cynicism is related with the perceptions the workers have or themselves. The authors found that the persons with a cynical attitude towards organizations have as a probable cause of being less satisfied with their work. On the other hand, Yildiz & Saylikay(2014, p.626), found that organizational cynicism is the cause of worker alienation in affective, cognitive and behavior aspects associated with feelings of impotence, lack of meaning at work and isolation. On their part, Nair & Kamalanabha (2010, p.24) found a relation between organizational cynicism and unethical behaviors on the management level.

2.2 Definition and types of organizational cynicism

Cynicism, in the field of organizational behavior, has been conceptualized as a negative attitude composed of beliefs about the lack of integrity of the employing organization, feelings and behaviors assumed by the employee towards the organizational practices, policies and agents (Dean, et.al, 1998, p. 345).  It is about a multidimensional concept in which beliefs, affections and behaviors are combined. The cognitive dimension is represented in the belief that the principles of honesty, justice and sincerity are sacrificed to favor the personal interests of the directives, with unscrupulous and selfish organizations being this way (Valentine & Elias, 2005).

The literature surrounding cynicism in organizations accounts for some classifications such as: Social/Institutional Cynicism, defined by Abraham (2000, p.271) as the rupture of the psychological contract between an individual and society; b). Occupational Cynicism, associated with the practice of different professions and associated with the specific knowledge of the practice of each of them; c). Cynicism towards organizational change, associated with the feeling of uncertainty brought about by changes within organizations, as was proposed by Mirvis & Kanter (1989a, p.379) “The bosses or managers who carry out a process or organizational change must offer clear and convincing arguments… which show the need to change…” Afterwards, the studies of (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997, p.49),  furthered then by Stanley, Meyer & Topolnystky (2005, p.457), in which Organizational Change definitely has a significant association with the cynical behaviors in employees; d). Organizational Cynicism, the focus of the present study and linked with the field of organizational behavior, and of which was already mentioned that it has been defined as a negative attitude of the employee towards the organization.

Concerning the present study on organizational cynicism, a tripartisan structure is used to work, which is composed by the beliefs, feelings and behaviors which make part of the attitudinal theory established by Dean, et.al (1998, p.345), and which has already been used to measure organizational cynicism. Attitudinal analysis is used, since the premise for this study is: “Organizational cynicism is associated with a negative attitude of the employee towards the enterprise.” In this sense, the theoretical categories linked with the present study are: a). Cynical ideas, what the employee thinks concerning their boss; b). Cynical behavior, that the employee assumes concerning the other co-workers in terms of complaints, knowing looks, comments about the enterprise; c).  Cynical emotions associated with anger, tension and annoyance that the employee feels.

These three categories or characteristics denote the affective factor which includes emotions such as despair, disgust, suspicion, disappointment and pessimism (Dahar, 2009); Concerning the behavioral aspect, it includes explicit statements on the lack of principles of the organization and non-verbal behaviors (Davis, 2000) and certain forms of alienation (O´Brien, Haslam, Jetten, Humphrey, O´Sullivan & Postmes, 2004). Besides, when employees develop a perception of incoherence in management through the observance of managerial practices, a perspective of Organizational Cynicism arises, which is refered to as Cynicism towards Management (Anderson & Bateman, 1997).

3. Methodology

3.1. Configuration of the Sample and its composition

For the present exploration study, a non-probabilistic sample of 334 workers was established, of which 50% correspond to females and 50% to males. The ages of the participants correspond to 47% between 20 and 30 years old, 33% between 30 and 40 years old, 16% between 40 and 50 years old and 4% older than 50. Concerning their marital status, 53% of the participants are single, 47% are married or living with their partner. Regarding level of academic studies, out of the total, 57% of the participants stated having undergone graduate-level studies, 42% underwent professional formation (bachelor's degree or undergraduate studies) and only 1% had only basic High School studies. Concerning the production sector which the participants claimed to be working in, 20% in the education sector, 14% in the private services sector, 13% in the commercial sector, 10%  in the Government sector, 5% in the tourism sector, 3% in the financial sector, 2% in the transportation sector and 19% in other labor activities. Finally, regarding their time in the enterprise at the moment of answering to this instrument, 68% of participants claimed to have been in the enterprise between 1 and 5 years, 23% from 5 to 15 years and 9% for more than 15 years.

3.2 Data collection

An instrument was designed, of which the first part is composed of 7 items (from 1 to 7), which correspond to the demographic assessment of the participant concerning age, sex, marital status, level of academic formation, type of enterprise in which they work, and productive sector in which they work. A second part of the instrument was built from a Likert-type self-descriptive scale adapted by Salessi & Omar (2014b, p.369). The scale is graded from 1 to 5, with 1 being: Never, and 5: Always. This second part is constituted by the theoretical categories: Cynical Ideas, which cover items 8 to 10; Cynical Behaviors, which cover items 11 to 14; Cynical Emotions, which cover items 15 to 17 (See Attachment A). The instrument was applied electronically by using the Google Forms system. It was sent to databases which were obtained from sources such as the Chamber of Commerce of Cartagena, networks such as LinkedIn, as long as participants met the requirement that they had to be working in the city of Cartagena de Indias. The data collection was carried out during a period between October 2016 and January 2017. Only properly filled-out forms with full answers were accepted; an error rate of 3% was found, and these forms were not used for analysis.

3.3 Validation of the instrument and treatment of the Data

In the treatment of the data, first, the Excel application was used in the part of coding and organizing, and then a database was built with the data collected and coded with the support of the SPSS software version 23, with which the mandatory tests and the factorial modeling were prepared.

The validation of the instrument for its internal consistency and reliability was performed through the Cronbach's Alpha procedure. This obtained a global value equivalent to 0,84, in the 344, indicating a good consistency and reliability. Once separated by categories, for the factor 'Cynical Ideas', an Alpha of 0,90 was obtained; for the factor 'Cynical Behaviors', an Alpha of 0,78 and for the factor 'Cynical Emotions', an Alpha of 0,91. It is noteworthy that before submitting the instrument, a pilot test was carried out with 32 participants, which allowed to establish the consistency tests to proceed with the application, and in this pilot test, Global Cronbach's Alpha was 0,87. This way, the 10 items proposed in the second part of the instrument measure what the authors want to measure in terms of organizational cynicism. It is important to recognize that for Salessi & Omar (2014b), when applying the instrument, they also obtained validity and consistency, managing to establish that for Colombia, and particularly for Cartagena, there is a functional, operational, semantic and conceptual equivalence in the items submitted for assessment by the participants.

Given that an exploration study was proposed, the technique of factorial analysis is assumed from the first components (also called main components) with extraction without rotation and with confirmation extraction through the Varimax method, understanding that what was sought was to discover the first components grouping a set of characteristics associated to the categories observed empirically, and which may explain at least 60% of the Organizational Cynicism construct.

Concerning the factorial model, the pertinent tests were carried out regarding the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin), which yielded a result of 0,8325, considered very good to proceed with the use of the factorial technique, besides, this test is complemented by obtaining a significance lower than 5% in Bartlett's Sphericity test , which confirmed that the method of extraction was viable for the collected data.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Descriptive Results

From a descriptive viewpoint, the results obtained in the assessment of the instrument by the participants require to keep in mind that the closer it gets to 5, indicates a greater presence of organizational cynicism, while the closer to 1 indicates a smaller presence of organizational cynicism in each of the categories or factors exposed for assessment. It is assumed from the start that in every organization there is presence of organizational cynicism, due to this being an attitude inherent to human being present in social and collective life. The first step is a comparison between the results obtained by Salessi & Omar (2014b) in the Central zone of Argentina, and the results obtained in this study in Cartagena de Indias:

Chart 1
Compared results, Argentina Vs. Colombia.

(1) Include the provinces of Córdoba, Entre Ríos and Santa Fe.
(2) DANE projection for 2017.
(3) INDEC – National Population, Household and Housing Census 2010
(4) M: Mean
(5) DE: Standard Deviation

Source: Made by the authors based on the results

Chart 1 admits that in both cases, there is presence of organizational cynicism, with this presence being stronger in the Central zone of Argentina than in Cartagena de Indias.  This can be graphically explained in the following manner:

Graph 1
Presence of Organizational Cynicism comparing the Central
zone (Argentina), and Cartagena de Indias (Colombia).

Source: Made by the authors based on the results obtained.

The inner triangle (yellow) indicates the minimum presence of organizational cynicism, and the grey triangle in the outer zone indicates the greater presence of organizational cynicism. In this respect, the score of the Central zone of Argentina (orange triangle), is above that of the city of Cartagena de Indias in Colombia (blue triangle). The greatest average score in the two compared zones corresponds to Cynical Behavior and Cynical Ideas.

From the viewpoint of the demographic variables declared by the participants, it was possible to establish the following:

Chart 2
Summary of Demographic variables of the participants

Source: Made by the authors based on the collected data

From the viewpoint of age, the employees over 50 years of age who participated tend to have a greater attitude of cynicism, specifically in cynical behavior (2,63); according to gender, women show a greater tendency towards cynical attitudes, specifically in cynical behavior (2,55), regarding marital status, the greatest cynical attitude corresponds to singles, and it is perceived in cynical behavior (2,53), according to academic level, the greatest cynical attitude is observed in employees with graduate studies, with a greater weigh in cynical behavior (2,61); concerning the type of enterprise, the biggest cynical attitude is observed in the public types of enterprises, specifically regarding cynical behavior (2,59); according to the productive sector, the biggest trend towards a cynical attitude is observed in the private services sector, specifically in cynical behavior (2,79); and regarding the time spent in the enterprise, people with more than 15 years of service, specifically concerning cynical ideas (2,38) and cynical behavior (2,35).

On the other hand, it is possible to observe that for all of the participant's demographic variables, cynical behavior is a constant with a greater average, both specific and global (2,52), this behavior is associated with the attitude assumed by the employee when complaining with their own co-workers about what is happening in the enterprise, when exchanging knowing looks with their co-workers, when commenting to other persons how things are going in the enterprise, and with the development of a constant criticism towards the policies and practices of the enterprise in front of their co-workers.

The second factor which apparently creates the greatest organizational cynicism is that concerning cynical ideas, with a global average of 2,32 in all demographic variables registered. Cynical ideas are associated with the perception that the employee has of their immediate boss regarding what they say and do.

On the other hand, cynical emotions are the factor which shows a smaller trend towards the construction of a cynical attitude by the employees; it is the pattern that has the smallest average among the demographic variables, and its global average is smaller (1,87). That is, when the employee thinks about the enterprise, they feel less angry, less tense and less upset.

4.2 Analytical results: The factorial Model

The model of exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) was applied on the data collected in the second part of the applied instrument. 3340 data were obtained for 3 factors, constituted by 10 items and assessed by 334 participants. As was mentioned in the methodological section, the mandatory tests were performed, which allowed to proceed with the execution of the model. The model was run a first time to carry out the extraction without confirmation, and a second time, in which a confirmation extraction was performed using the Varimax rotation method. The first extraction accounts for 3 components which explain the accumulated variance a 75,9% of times, as is presented in Chart 3.

Chart 3
Confirmation Extraction, Varimax rotation.

Source: Calculations performed by the authors based on the collected data

Chart 3 accounts for three (3) components that explain around 76% of variance. The first component explains 48, 87%, the second component explains 16,35%, and the third component explains 10,70%.  The rotated components extracted are shown in Chart 4.

Chart 4
Extraction of the Matrix by Varimax rotated components.

Source: Calculations made by the authors.

The saturated loads for every factor in each component can be seen in Bold. The confirmation Factorial Analysis by Varimax Rotation confirms the three theoretical categories used in the instrument to measure organizational cynicism.
First component: Cynical Emotions, in the order of explaining according to the factorial load, first is the cynical emotion defined by annoyance (0,889); in second place, the cynical emotion of feeling angry (0,877); the third factor of this component is the cynical emotion of feeling tense when thinking about the enterprise.

The second component: Cynical Ideas, in the order of explaining according to the factorial load, first cynical idea is doubt over what the boss says he will do (0,894); the second factor is the lack of coherence between what the boss says and does (0,892); the third factor is what is thought about the words and actions of the boss (0,871).

The third component: Cynical Behavior, the comments to other people about how things are going in the enterprise (0,782); the second factor, the criticism to the policies and practices of the enterprise (0,757); the third factor, the knowing looks (0,704); the fourth factor, complaining to friends of what happens in the enterprise (0,651).

From the rotated extraction, the correlation matrix is obtained, from which it is possible to observe, through the top diagonal, the main correlations between the items composing the three categories studied for organizational cynicism: Cynical Ideas, Cynical Behaviors and Cynical Emotions.  Chart 5 shows the correlations below:

Chart 5
Matrix of Correlations between the items for
the dimensions of Organizational Cynicism.

Source: Made by the authors with the help of SPSS.

The presence of correlation between Cynical Idea (CI8): “I think my boss says one thing and does another” and the Cynical Emotion (CE17): “When I think about my enterprise I feel upset”, is 40%.  It is probable that the lack of integrity and coherence between the words and actions of the boss is something the employee is associating with the enterprise, venting the emotion towards it as a symbolic entity. This kind of correlations may be linked with work satisfaction by the employee, possibly translating to a relation between occupational cynicism and organizational cynicism through the depersonalization of work.

On the other hand, in Chart 5 it is possible to appreciate how CB 11 (cynical behavior) is correlated with cynical emotions CE15, CE16, CE17 a 52% of times. Between the consistency of the statements of the boss with the emotions of feeling angry, upset and tense. The attitude of the boss with the manifested cynical behavior is correlated then with the mood and emotions of the workers, which then translate to cynical attitudes towards the enterprise. The emotions of anger, tension and annoyance negatively affect the level of work satisfaction that the worker may have in the enterprise at any given time.

Based on the matrix of correlations, it is possible to construct Figure 1, in which are mapped the relations between the factors of each of the three constituting parts of cynical attitude: Cynical Ideas, Cynical Behavior and Cynical Emotions.

Figure 1
Correlation Model for Cynical Attitude based on Cynical
Ideas, Cynical Behaviors and Cynical Emotions.

Source: Made by the authors based on the Correlation Matrix

In figure 1, it is possible to schematically observe the three key factors in the constitution of cynical attitudes within organizations by the workers. The evidence allows to establish that these three factors do not act independently; they are linked from each individual's way of being, the ways of perceiving and feeling their reality. This evidences further that the human being as an individual is a system in itself, linked to the one and to the many, and its behavior is an answer that, within organizations, may be linked positively or negatively, as is the case with cynical attitudes which contain a negative load..

4.3. Discussion

Cynical attitudes exercised by workers in the context of organizations are, without a doubt, a factor of critical importance and negative nature for the performance of an enterprise. Cynicism is considered then as an 'Organizational Pathology' which requires it to be dealt with, since it attacks the most sensitive tissues in organizational culture.

Studies on organizational cynicism have managed to demonstrate empirically that cynical attitudes are present in the context of every organization, regardless of whether the organization is public or private in nature, or of it being in the productive sector of services or manufacturing, as has been evidenced in the present study.

Cynical behaviors, at least those ones verified in the present study, ratify that organizational cynicism is explained in its variance at least by 76%, mainly by the factors or categories of Cynical Behaviors, Cynical Ideas and Cynical Emotions.  Organizational cynicism is therefore, at least from an empirical point of view, a variable of critical importance in the studies on organizational behavior; it is linked to problems of work satisfaction, performance, appropriation of work by the employee. It affects the identity formed by the employee in relation with their enterprise. It builds a basis of beliefs based on distrust, and in processes of organizational change, it arises as a factor of high resistance.

Organizational cynicism is thus manifested as a subjective experience that is negative for an organization, and is characterized by the presence of cognitions, emotions and attitudes that are negative and which are born in an individual, but spread collectively in the organizational level. Besides, it is probable that organizational cynicism may be linked to the Burnout syndrome in one of its characteristics: Depersonalization, which is the development of negative attitudes and feelings such as cynicism. Which is not far from the development of an attitude of organizational cynicism mediated by cynical ideas, emotions and behaviors.

On the other hand, there is a significant correlation between organizational cynicism and the demographic variables of the employees. The present study manages to evidence that older employees have a greater tendency to develop cynical attitudes; That from the point of view of sex, women are more prone to develop cynical attitudes, specially due to the factor of cynical emotions; concerning marital status, single workers tend to develop a greater tendency towards cynical attitudes, especially regarding cynical behaviors; according to academic formation, the employees with a greater formation tend towards cynical attitudes, especially cynical behaviors.. Regarding the type of enterprise, the employees of enterprises of the public sector develop cynical attitudes more often. It is particularly interesting to see how private enterprises, whose main activity is the providing of services, present a greater trend towards cynical attitudes.

5. Conclusions

The instrument applied focused on three key factors of organizational cynicism: Cynical ideas, Cynical behaviors and Cynical Emotions. The latter present a greater explanatory factorial load towards the constitution of cynical attitudes. Emotions are therefore a key factor for intervention in organizational culture and environments. The evidence obtained in the present study account for the fact that when intervening with emotions, it is possible to greatly reduce the formation of cynical attitudes by the worker, especially of those emotions linked with the idea that the worker has of the enterprise they work in.

Concerning new research on this topic, it is possible to approach the structuring of causality models given the first findings obtained through the application of the confirmatory factorial model based on Varimax Rotation. The factorial loads and the percentages of variance explanation account for the variables ordered by their importance. It is relevant to research causality, since recommendations may be found which allow to improve the performance of an enterprise through the predictive modeling of attitudes of organizational cynicism.

On the other hand, the evidence obtained through the factorial model is key in the designing of instruments for measuring organizational cynicism. There is no doubt that this research does not exhaust this topic nor does it intend to. This is, firstly, an exploration research which yields interesting results to design future research, which may be approached with techniques of structural equations or lineal models. However, it is advisable that the study of organizational cynicism be supplemented with qualitative research through participating observation and in-depth interviews, and from here could be derived a mixed methodological approach, with qualitative and quantitative characteristics.

It is clear that in the current context of a highly competitive environment for organizations, in which the decision makers have as priority the survival of the enterprise and their own survival as Directives, tensions arise within an organization which lead to acts of injustice or perception of it towards groups of workers or individuals and thus strengthening a cynical attitude, which may exercise a harmful influence not only over the results of organizations in which productivity is affected, but also in terms of the very health of the employees when developing in them a strong depersonalization from their work.

In the specific case of the present study, the empirical results evidence that there is indeed presence of cynical conditions in workers in enterprises of the city of Cartagena de Indias (Colombia). That the characteristic with the greatest presence is the Cynical behavior, meaning a cynical conduct, linked with cynical emotions and ideas. From the emotional viewpoint, three elements are evidenced which can be symptomatic: Anger, tension and annoyance. Concerning the perception towards who exercises functions as a boss or manager, the symptom translates to a loss of trust towards the leader. And regarding the behavior, the symptom translates to the employee's way of relating with other co-workers, in which the employee deposits their cynical attitude, transferring this way of feeling and thinking.

Bibliographical References

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: bases and consequences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(3), 269–292.

Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace : some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(5), 449–469.

Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An Upward Feedback Field Experiment: Supervisors’ Cynicism, Reactions, and Commitment To Subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 275–297.

Bédard, R. (2003). El rombo y las cuatro dimensiones filosóficas. AD-Minister, (3), 68–88.

Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199-208.

Chen, Z. (2016). An exploratory study of police cynicism in China, 39(1), 175–189.

Cox, J. C., & Didier, N. (2010). Cinismo y comportamiento organizacional: una relación dialéctica. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología: Ciencia Y Tecnología, 3(2), 7–15.

Davis, W. & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Per¬ceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leader– member exchange perspective. Leader¬ship Quart, 15, 439 - 465

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341–352.

Dhar, R. L. (2009). Cynicism in the indian I.T. organizations: An exploration of the employees´perspectives. Qualitative Sociology Review, 5, 152-175.

Gil-monte, P. R., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). El sindrome de quemarse por el trabajo en servicios sociales. Diputación de Valencia.

Hamel, G. (2012). Lo que importa ahora: cómo triunfar en un mundo de cambios implacables, competencia feroz e innovación sin barreras (NORMA). Bogotá: 2012.

Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (McGRAW-HIL). México D.F.

Kalaǧan, G., & Aksu, M. B. (2010). Organizational cynicism of the research assistants: A case of Akdeniz University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4820–4825.

McNamara, C. (2000). Overview of cynicism in business organizations. Retrieved from http://managementhelp.org/personalwellness/cynicism/#anchor1029384756

Méndez, C., & Rondón, M. A. (2012). Introducción al análisis factorial exploratorio. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 45, 197–2017.

Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1989a). Combatting cynicism in the workplace. National Productivity Review, 8(4), 377–394.

Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1989b). The cynical Americans: living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion (Jossey-Bas). San Francisco.

Mirvis, P. H., & Kanter, D. L. (1991). Beyond demography: A psychographic profile of the workforce. Human Resource Management, 30(1), 45–68.

Nafei, W. (2013). The Effects of Organizational Cynicism on Job Attitudes an Empirical Study on Teaching Hospitals in Egypt. International Business Research, 6(7), 52–69.

Nair, P., & Kamalanabha, T. J. (2010). The impact of cynicism on ethical intentions of indian managers: the moderating role of seniority. Jornal of International Business Ethics, 3(1), 14–29.

Niederhoffer, A. (1967). Behind the shield: The police in urban society. New York, NY: Doubleday

O’Brien, A. T., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Humphrey, L., O’Sullivan, L., & Post¬mes, T. (2004). Cynicism and disen¬gagement among devalued employee groups: The need to aspire. Career De¬velopment International, 9, 28-44.

O’Connell, B. J., Holzman, H. H., & Armandi, B. R. (1986). Police cynicism and the modes of adaptation. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14, 317–313.

Pino, N., Martí, A., & Valdenegro, D. (2012). Manejo del cinismo organizacional: la oportunidad del líder. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología: Ciencia Y Tecnología, 5(2), 7–15.

Regoli, R. M., Crank, J. P., & Culbertson, R. G. (1989). Police Cynicism , Job Satisfaction , and Work Relations of Police Chiefs : An Assessment of the Influence of Department Size *. Sociological Focus, 22(3), 161–171.

Reichers, A., Wanous, J., & Austin, J. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11(1), 48–59.

Rodríguez, M. J., & Morar, R. (2001). Estadística Informática: casos y ejemplos con el SPSS. UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE.

Salessi, S. (2011). Cinismo organizacional: una revision de la literatura y algunas consideraciones conceptuales. Revista Interamericana de Psicología Ocupacional, 30(1), 88–105.

Salessi, S., & Omar, A. (2014a). Cinismo organizacional: consecuencias sobre la salud mental de los trabajadores. Psicología Y Salud, 24(2), 269–277. Retrieved from http://revistas.uv.mx/index.php/psicysalud/article/view/930

Salessi, S., & Omar, A. (2014b). Validación de la escala de cinismo organizacional : un estudio con trabajadores argentinos. Revista de Psicología, 32(2), 30. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0254-92472014000200007&lng=es&nrm=iso

Saravia, E. (2015). Actitudes de cinismo , de temores y de aceptación ante el cambio organizacional en un grupo de ejecutivos de Lima. Journal of Business, 7(1), 20–31.

Scott, K. A., & Zweig, D. (2016). Understanding and mitigating cynicism in the work place. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 1–31.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistence to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psycholog, 19(4), 429–460.

Tokgöz, N. & Yilmaz, H. (2008). Organi¬zational cynicism: an investigation on hotel organizations in Eskisehir and Alanya. EscucharAnadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 283-305

Turner, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2001). Cynicism as a fundamental dimension of moral decision-making: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 123–136.

Valentine, S. & Elias, R. Z. (2005). Percei¬ved corporate ethical values and indivi¬dual cynicism of working students. Psy¬chological Reports, 97, 832-834.

Volpe, R. L., Mohammed, S., Hopkins, M., Shapiro, D., & Dellasega, C. (2014). The negative impact of organizational cynicism on physicians and nurses. Health Care Manager, 33(4), 276–288. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25350015

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: measurement, antecedents and correlates. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 132–153.

Yıldız, S., & Şaylıkay, M. (2014). The Effect of Organizational Cynicism on Alienation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109(2), 622–627.

Zapata, Á. (2009). El modo de ser cínico de los dirigentes. Cuadernos de Administración Universidad Del Valle, (41), 81–92.

Annexes

ATTACHMENT A

MODEL OF THE INSTRUMENT USED

PART I

Item 1. Select the age group you make part of.

O Between 20 and 30 years old

O Between 30 and 40 years old

O Between 40 and  50 years old

O Older than 50 years

Item 2. What is your sex?

O Male

O Female

Item 3. What is your marital status?

O Single

O Married

Item 4. What is your level of academic formation? If you have no Graduate studies, just choose the option 'Professional'.

O High School

O Bachelor´s Degree

O Graduate Degree

Item 5. What type of enterprise do you work in?

O Public

O Private

Item 6. What Productive Sector does your enterprise belong to?

O Services in the Private Sector

O Services in the Public Sector

O Industrial or Manufacturing

O Commercial

O Education

O Finances

O Tourism

O Transportation

O Other

Item 7. How long have you been working with your enterprise?

O 1 to 5 years

O 5 to 15 years

O More than 15 years

PART II

Instructions: Classify the following statements from 1 to 5, with 1 being: Never, 2: Almost never, 3: Sometimes, 4: Almost always, 5: Always:

References: Items 8 to 10 evaluate Cynical ideas. Items 11 to 14 evaluate Cynical Behaviors. Items 15 to 17, Cynical emotions.  These references are only made visible for this research article, and when applying this instrument, the categories are not made visible for the participants, only the statements.

1. Doctor en Administración de la Universidad Eafit. Director Programa Maestría en Administración y de la Línea de Investigación en Estrategia y Gestión Adscrita al Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo IDE, de la Facultad de Economía y Negocios de la Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar. jrobledo@utb.edu.co

2. Doctora en Administración, Investigadora de la Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.

3. Co-investigador Magister en Administración, Línea de Investigación Estrategia y Gestión.