Translated from Spanish to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

com

Psychology MagazineVol. 32 (2), 2014 (ISSN 0254-9247)

Validation of the organizational cynicism scale:

a study with Argentine workers

solana salesi1and Alicia Omar2

Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, National University of Rosario
National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET)

The objective of the study was to validate the Brandes Scale of Organizational Cynicism for
its use with Argentine workers. The functional equivalence of the instrument was analyzed.
An adapted version was administered to a sample of 396 employees, who also answered a
selection of instruments to explore trust in the organization, organizational commitment
and job satisfaction. The exploratory factor analysis showed a structure of three factors
that explained 68.8% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis led to re-specify the
model, eliminating three items. The construct validity was demonstrated based on the
correlation analyzes carried out. The reliability of the instrument reached satisfactory
levels. The weaknesses and strengths of the research carried out are pointed out. An
agenda for future studies is suggested. Keywords: cynicism, organizations, workers,
validity

Validation of the organizational cynicism scale: A study with Argentinean workers The aim
of this study was to validate the Brandes´s Organizational Cynicism Scale in order to use it with
Argentine workers. Functional equivalence of the instrument was analyzed. The adapted version
was administered to a sample of 396 workers; who also answered a selection of instruments to
explore organizational trust, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Exploratory factor
analysis showed a three-factor structure that explained 68.8% of the total variance. Confirmatory
factor analysis led to re-specification of the model,

1
This study was carried out within the framework of the doctoral scholarship granted
by CONICET to the first author, directed by the second author.
Graduate in Psychology and CONICET doctoral fellow. Assistant Professor, Department
of Psychology, Senior Lecturer. Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of Rosario, Pontificia
Universidad Católica Argentina. Postal Address: Balcarce 855, 9ºA (S2000DNQ) Rosario,
Argentina. Contact: [email protected]
2
PhD in Psychology, Scientific Researcher at CONICET, Research Institute,
Faculty of Humanities and Arts, National University of Rosario. Category 1
teacher of Graduate Careers. Postal Address: Italia 1365, 1ºA, (S2000DFA)
Rosario, Argentina. Contact: [email protected]
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

eliminating three items. Construct validity was demonstrated on the basis of correlation analysis.
Instrument reliability reached satisfactory levels. Weaknesses and strengths of the research are
pointed out. A new agenda for future research is suggested.
Keywords: cynicism; organizations; employees; statistical validity

358
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

The study of cynicism has positioned itself as an

attractive subject for specialists in organizational behavior
during the last two decades, although the first investigations
on the subject were carried out in the field of personality
psychology in the middle of the last century (Cook &
Medley , 1954; Sarnoff, 1960). The interest in cynicism, as
workers' response to the new labor realities, was fostered by
the socio-political-economic transformations that went
through at the end of the 20th century and the dawn of the
21st century (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989). Although Brooks and
Vance (cited in Brandes & Das, 2006) are credited with
having used the term organizational cynicism (OC) for the
first time, it was after Dean's publication,
Initially, OB was conceptualized as a belief that organizational
change is possible but improbable, due to the ineptitude or
unwillingness of those responsible for carrying it out (Watt &
Piotrowski, 2008). In contemporary literature, the construct is
defined as a negative work attitude that employees develop
towards the organization in which they work (Brandes, Das &
Hadani, 2006). From the perspective of Dean et al. (1998), OC is a
set of pessimistic thoughts, negative affects, and critical behaviors
directed toward the organization as a whole or toward various
elements of the work environment (for example, policies, values,
practices). practices and people). Therefore, it is a complex
construct. which can subsume other frequently studied forms of
cynicism as specific and independent variants. Such is the case, for
example, of cynicism towards change in general (Reichers, Wanous
& Austin, 1997), cynicism towards corporations (Bateman, Sakano
& Fujita, 1992), and cynicism towards top management (Andersson
& Batemann, 1997).

359
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

At present, the OC is considered as a multidimensional

construct, made up of ideas, affections and tendencies to action.
The concept was rooted in the conviction that the principles of
honesty and justice have been violated in favor of the personal
interests of senior management. Organizational cynics strongly
believe that the organizations in which they work are unfair and
selfish. They consider that they are prevented from participating in
decision-making processes, and that there are hidden motivations
underlying the information that is explicitly communicated to them
(Qian & Daniels, 2008). They are suspicious and wary of promises
of change and improvement; and non-compliance with them
generates disappointment, anger and feelings of betrayal (Salessi,
2011). Likewise, it has been pointed out (Dean, Brandes &
Dharwadkar, 1998) that the cynical employee may feel morally
superior and secretly complacent about it. The observable
manifestations of OB range from explicit statements about the lack
of principles and ethics, to behaviors that are clearly
counterproductive for the organization (Chiaburu, Peng, Oh, Banks
& Lomeli, 2013). Among organizational cynics, knowing looks and
sarcastic smiles are frequent, as well as cynical humor and
destructive criticism (Brandes & Das, 2006). Cynical humor helps to
cope with the OC's own negative feelings and is usually expressed
in the form of ridicule of organizational insignia. In this way,
teasing and jokes promote a temporary sense of relief in the face
of organizational pressures (Fleming & Spincer, 2003). Destructive
criticism, by contrast, fuels general malaise and undermines
relationships with coworkers, acting as a catalyst for an upward
spiral of negativity. Ultimately, it constitutes a way of expressing
the impotence, hopelessness and pessimism inherent in cynicism,
and acts as a positive reinforcement that sustains this attitude over
time (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989).
OC has proven to be a highly damaging phenomenon
for organizations. Its negative consequences include lower
productivity (Neves, 2012), resistance to change (Barton

360
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

& Ambrosini, 2013), and the lack of commitment to the

organization and work (Türköz, Polat & Coţar, 2013).
Organizational cynics do not feel obligated to carry out
behaviors that exceed what is strictly prescribed for their
position, so they rarely engage in organizational citizenship
behaviors (Evans, Goodman & Davis, 2011). However, the
harmful effects of CO do not end in the workplace. It has
recently been reported that maintaining this attitude over time
also has detrimental effects for employees (Salessi & Omar,
2014). In this sense, organizational cynics present lower levels
of satisfaction and well-being, together with a high
predisposition to experience stress andburnout.In turn, the
distrust and caution typical of cynical attitudes can have
inhibitory and disturbing effects on interpersonal relationships,
even eroding the cynic's social support networks.
Due to its implications on the effectiveness of organizations and
on the mental health of workers, the study of OB has transcended the
North American organizational contexts in which it emerged (Dean et
al., 1998). In this sense, there are efforts to study its antecedents and
consequences both in Asian and European countries (Grama, 2013;
Gkorezis, Petridou & Xanthiakos, 2014; Kan, 2014), as well as in Latin
American (Didier Pino, Martí del Campo & Valdenegro Ibarra, 2012;
Martínez Lugo et al., 2005; Salessi, 2011; Salessi & Omar, 2014).

Parallel to the work aimed at establishing the conceptual bases of

OC and differentiating it from other similar constructs, systematic
attempts have been made to operationalize it. The review of the
specialized literature shows that self-descriptive scales have been
favored in measuring OC over other data collection alternatives (for
example, observations or interviews). Among the different proposals
to measure cynicism in organizations, the scale developed by Brandes,
Dharwadkar and Dean (1999) is one of the most widely used
instruments in current research. His popularity is based on his ability
to explore each one in detail.

361
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

of the dimensions that make up the construct, unlike other OC scales

that only measure partial aspects or specific variants of the
phenomenon (Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2005; Wanous, Reichers
& Austin, 2000).
The initial validation of the scale was developed by
Brandes et al. (1999) with a sample of 393 workers from a
North American industry, of which 264 were private
employees and 129 worked as supervisors. The data matrix
allowed extracting three factors that explained 54.78% of
the total variance of the construct. The first factor was called
"Cognitive Organizational Cynicism" (5 items;α= .86), since
the items that comprise it explore the perception of
inconsistency between organizational policies and practices.
The second factor, labeled as "Affective Organizational
Cynicism" (4 items;α= .80), evaluates negative emotions and
feelings towards the employing organization. The third
factor, identified as "Organizational Behavioral Cynicism" (4
items;α= .78), explores the behaviors of criticism, complaints
and sarcasm regarding the organization and its operation.
The 13 items that make up the original instrument adopt the
format of affirmative sentences against which the subjects
must indicate the frequency of their occurrence on a 5-point
Likert scale. The instrument provides a global score in CO, as
well as partial scores corresponding to each of the three
dimensions that comprise it. So far, a few validation studies
of this scale have been carried out, either for its use in
European (Bobbio, Manganelli Rattazzi & Spadaro, 2006) or
Asian (Karacaoğlu and İnce, 2012) contexts. However, there
is no translated, adapted and validated version available for
use with Spanish-speaking populations.

362
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Method

Of the different forms of adaptation, the method proposed by

Herdman, Fox-Rushby and Badía (1998), popularized by Hasselmann and
Reichenheim (2003), was chosen. This method makes it possible to
establish the functional equivalence between the foreign instrument and
its adapted version, and consists of a set of steps to follow: conceptual,
semantic, operational and measurement equivalence.
Theconceptual equivalencerefers to the equivalence of
each concept between the culture where the instrument was
developed and the target culture (in which the instrument
will be applied). For this purpose, an exhaustive
bibliographic review was carried out on the way in which the
concept "organizational cynicism" is understood in
Argentine culture. The analysis and discussion of the
findings allowed us to conclude that the nature of the
concept was similar for both the culture of origin (North
American) and the target culture (Argentina). As part of this
process, all items on the original scale were subjected to
intensive critical review by experts.

Thesemantic equivalenceIt consists of the translation of the

instrument preserving the meaning between different languages. In this
case, the semantic equivalence analysis was carried out in four stages: a)
the original instrument was translated from English into Spanish
(Argentine); b) experts in English retranslated the Spanish version into
English; c) English translators compared the two forms of the instrument
'blindly' in order to identify agreement between the original item and the
translated item; d) taking into account the appreciations of the specialists,
the authors of this paper discussed and decided to include the items that
would make up the Argentine version of the instrument. This prototype
version was administered to a non-probabilistic sample of the

363
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

target population, made up of 86 postgraduate students; who,

in turn, worked in different organizations based in the city of
Rosario and surroundings. 56% of the sample was made up of
men. The average age of the participants was 32.81 years (OF=
5.64), while the average job seniority was 3.74 years (OF=2.24).

The purpose of this preliminary study was to explore the

operational equivalence(maintenance of the operative characteristics
of the original universe through the use of certain norms before and
during the application of the instruments), basically in relation to time
to complete the scale, clarity of the instructions to carry out the task
and semantic and syntactic adequacy of the items. This study
demonstrated that the items were well understood, that the
instructions were clearly indicated, and that the scale chosen to
answer the scale (5-point Likert) did not cause difficulties.
Themeasurement equivalenceIts purpose is to analyze the
psychometric properties of an instrument through the calculation
of reliability and validity measures. In this case, exploratory factor
validity (EFA) was analyzed using a principal component analysis
with rotation.oblimix. Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was carried out in order to verify the adequacy of the model
indicated by the AFE. The construct validity was determined
through the correlation with other concepts that, from the review
of the specialized literature, emerged as relevant with respect to
OC. Reliability was calculated by calculating internal consistency
coefficients (Cronbach's alpha). For the study of measurement
equivalence, the sample and instruments described below were
used:

Participants

We worked with a non-probabilistic sample made up of 396

Argentine workers (53% male), belonging to different public and
private organizations located in the central area of Argentina.

364
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

The age of the sample ranged from 21 to 69 years, with the

average being around 32.42 years (OF=9.48). The mean job
seniority was 7.73 years (OF=8.50). 43% of those surveyed had
completed higher education (university or tertiary), while the rest
had completed their secondary studies. 82.2% worked in a
dependency relationship. 37.5% occupied medium-high
management, being bosses, supervisors or area managers
respectively. 64% of the participants worked in privately managed
organizations. Regarding the branches of activity, 37.2% of the
sample worked in the service sector, 33.9% in industry, 18.6% in
education and the remaining 10.3% in the field of health.

Instruments

The participants answered a booklet made up of the

adapted version of the OC Scale (13 items with a 5-point Likert-
type response format, ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always),
and a selection of standardized instruments, developed to
measure the constructs listed below.
organizational trust: was measured through the Argentine
adaptation (Flores, 2011) of the Organizational Trust Inventory
(Oliveira & Tamayo, 2008). The adaptation includes 20 items
distributed in five subscales labeled as:Promotion of employee
growth(4 items;α= .84, eg: "Real conditions are offered for the
employee to develop");organizational strength(5 items;α= .85;
ex .: “she is known for her economic power”);Organizational
financial recognition(4 items;α= .71; eg: "The employee's work is
recognized through salary");Regulations regarding the
dismissal of employees (3 items;α= .83; eg: "Employees are fired
at any time, regardless of legal regulations");ethical patterns(4
items;α= .84; eg: "Being honest with customers is your ethical
principle"). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

365
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

organizational commitment: was explored through the

Argentine adaptation (Omar, 2006) of the Organizational
Commitment Scale by Meyer and Allen (1991). Said instrument
is made up of 18 items equally distributed in three factors,
namely: affective commitment(α= .87; eg: "I would be happy if I
spent the rest of my career in the company where I work");
calculative commitment(α= .82; eg: "Currently I remain in my
company both out of necessity and desire"); andRegulatory
commitment(α= .69; eg: "I do not feel any obligation to remain
in my current job"). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Work satisfaction: was evaluated using the Mac Donald and
Mac Intyre (1997) Generic Job Satisfaction Scale, adapted by
Omar (2011). The instrument has adequate psychometric
properties and is applicable to the most diverse occupational
fields. It is made up of seven items (α= .79; eg: "My work allows
me to develop my full potential"), and provides an overall
estimate of the degree of job satisfaction. Each item is rated on
a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree)
to 5 (totally agree).
The exploration protocol also included an informed consent
form, and a section designed to collect information about the age,
gender, level of education, and seniority of the participants; as well
as on the position they held (boss/supervisor/manager or
employee), the branch of activity of their organization (services,
industry, education and health) and the type of management
thereof (public or private).

Procedure
In the first instance, contact was made with various public and
private organizations located in cities located in the central zone of the
country, inviting them to participate in the study. With those who
agreed to collaborate, days and times were scheduled to specify the

366
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

data collection, ensuring that the process was carried out within
the same institutions, and at the times and places designated by
each organization for this purpose. After explaining the purpose of
the study, the response modality, ensuring the anonymity of all the
participants and the confidentiality of the data collected, we
proceeded to select only those employees who had agreed to
participate voluntarily. Subjects received instructions on response
mechanics. They were invited to complete the questionnaires
individually or in small groups. The doubts that arose were clarified
individually and in a personalized way during the administration
instance.

Results

The degree ofsemantic equivalencewas determined based on two

categories of analysis. On the one hand, the referential meaning,
linked to the agreement in terms of literal translation between the
original item and the translated item. On the other hand, the general
meaning, corresponding to the articulation of ideas between the
original item and its re-translation. The first was evaluated on a visual
analog scale in which the equivalence between pairs was judged from
0 to 100%. The second was evaluated by two translators based on four
levels of equivalence: a) unaltered; b) little altered; c) quite altered; and
d) completely altered. Both professionals agreed that the semantic
adaptation of the OC scale showed adequate levels of translation-
retranslation agreement. The results of this last analysis are presented
in Table 1.

367
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

Table 1
Semantic equivalence levels between the original item and its second translation

Translation-second translation
equivalence level (English-Spanish-English)

translator 1 translator 2

unchanged 11/13 = 84% 10/13= 77%

slightly altered 2/13 = 16% 3/13 = 23%

pretty upset 0/13 = 0% 0/13 = 0%

completely altered 0/13 = 0% 0/13 = 0%

In regards to themeasurement equivalence, in the first

instance, an AFE was carried out, through the method of principal
components with Oblimim rotation, since it was considered the
hypothesis that the factors of the scale were correlated. The data
matrix was considered factorable given that the Bartlett sphericity
test was significant (χ2= 5296.92;p< .001), and the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin sample adequacy index yielded a value of .92. As indicated by
the scree plot, three factors were extracted that explained 68.68%
of the total variance of the construct. Two criteria were used to
assign the items to each factor: (a) that the item was conceptually
related to the considered factor, and (b) that it had a factorial
weight equal to or greater than .40 in the corresponding factor
(Tabachnick & Fidel, 2007).
The analysis of the items that saturated each factor led to
labeling factor 1 as "Cynical Ideas", since it brought together 5
items referring to the perception of incoherence and inconsistency
between organizational policies and practices. Factor 2 was
identified as "Cynical behaviors", since the 4 items that weighed on
it refer to the presence of critical, complaining and sarcastic
behaviors. Finally, factor 3 was labeled "Cynical emotions", since
the 4 items that comprise it are linked to negative affectivity.

368
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) corresponding to each factor

was greater than .70, indicating acceptable reliability (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). Table 2 presents the composition of the scale, the
factor loadings corresponding to each item, the explained variance
and the coefficients (α) of the factors.

Table 2
Composition, factor loading, explained variance and α coefficients of the
factors corresponding to the adapted version of the CO Scale

No. Content of the item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

cynical ideas

1 I think my boss says one thing and does . 90

another

2* The policies, objectives and practices of my . 73

company seem to have little in common

3 When my boss says he's going to do something, I . 82

doubt if he's really going to do it.

4* In my company, one thing is asked of the . 67

employees, but another is rewarded

5 I find little relationship between what my boss . 85

says he will do and what he actually does

Cynical behaviors

6 I complain to my friends about the things that . 88

happen in my company

7 I can exchange knowing . 79

glances with my coworkers

8 I discuss with other people how things are . 90

going in my company

9 I criticize my company's practices and . 94

policies with others.

369
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

cynical emotions

10 When I think about my company I feel . 73

angry
11 When I think about my company I feel . 85
tense

12*When I think about my company I feel . 58

anxious

13 When I think about my company I feel . 76

annoying

Percent Variance Explained 36.52% 21.28% 11.09%

Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) . 91 . 96 . 86

Note. *items eliminated in the second AFC; so they are not part of the final version of
the scale.

Next, an AFC was carried out with a view to testing the model of
three correlated factors and 13 observable variables indicated by the
AFE (Table 2). For this analysis, the maximum likelihood estimation
method was used and various fit indices were calculated, following the
suggestions of Byrne (2010). In this sense, we opted for the
combination that brings together the χ indices2, χ2relative (CMIN/df),
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and its adjusted variance (AGFI),
comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). What is expected is that the χ test2
do not return significant values at the 5% level; that the CMIN/gl
index shows values less than 3; that the GFI, AGFI and CFI indices
reach a value of .90 or higher; and that the RMSEA index shows values
below .08 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).
The results obtained with the first model tested (Model
A, Table 3) were not fully satisfactory. Although the goodness of fit
indices (GFI) and comparative fit indices (CFI) showed adequate
values; the χ index2was significant and the χ ratio2on the degrees
of freedom (CMIN/df) yielded values higher than expected.

370
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Added to that, the RMSEA index was higher than suggested. Such
indicators demonstrated that the structure of the proposed
theoretical model was significantly different from that indicated by
the data covariance matrix. Therefore, the model was re-specified
by previously examining the factor loadings, the modification
indices and the residual matrix of the covariance and correlation
prediction matrix (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006). .
Based on the results derived from said examination, it was decided
to discard three items and recalculate the fit of the model.
Removing items to improve the factorial structure of an instrument
is a legitimate resource, given that it preserves the general
structure of the original model, but only with the most convenient
indicators (Kline, 2011).("My company's policies, objectives and
practices seem to have little in common”);item 4("In my company,
employees are asked for one thing, but another is rewarded");and
item 12("When I think about my company I feel anxious.”. Next, a
second CFA was carried out, now testing a model made up of 3
correlated factors and 10 observable variables (Model B, Table 3).

Table 3
Goodness-of-fit indices of the CO examiner models

Model χ2 df P CMIN/gl GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA

Model A 283.01 62 . 00 4.56 . 91 .86 .96 .09
Model B 50.16 32 . 22 1.57 . 98 .96 .99 .03
Note. χ2= chi-square;gl=degrees of freedom; CMIN/df = χ2relative; GFI =
goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted variant of GFI; CFI = comparative fit
index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

As can be seen in Table 3, Model B showed a better fit

compared to Model A; reason for which, it was decided to
keep it as definitive. The final structure of the adapted
version of the CO scale is shown in Figure 1.

371
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

e5 item 1
, 89
, 88 Ideas
e3 Item 3
cynical
, 93
e1 Item 5

, 58
e9 Item 6
, 97
e8 Item 7 , 84
Behaviors
, 97 , 68
cynical
e7 Item 8
, 92

e6 item 9

, 70
e13 Item 10
, 91
, 78 Emotions
e12 Item 11
cynical
, 90
e10 item 13

Figure1.CO model re-specified

At the same time, the reliability of the instrument (now made

up of 10 items) was again estimated by calculating the respective
Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Adequate values of internal
consistency were obtained for the three dimensions of CO (Cynical
Ideas α= .93;Cynical Behaviors α= .96;Cynical Emotions α= .89), as
well as for the full scale (COα= .93).
Finally, the construct validity was explored by computing a
set of correlation coefficients between the global CO score (and
each of its three subscales), with the rest of the variables
described in the Instruments (Method) section. The overall CO
was negatively correlated with the overall scores of trust in the
organization (r= -.41;p< .01); organizational commitment (r= -.
35;p< .01); and job satisfaction (r= -.69,p< .01). In addition,

372
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Statistically significant associations were found between the

three facets of OC and the subdimensions that make up each of
the explored constructs, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between the CO dimensions
and the subscales of the measured variables.

Cynicism Trust Commitment SL

organizational organizational organizational

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 eleven 12
1 2.83 .68 --
2 3.01 .92.54--
3 2.46 .90.61 .66--
4 3.15 .89-.52 -.39 -.36 --
5 3.22 .87-.21 -.19 -.26 . 44 - -
6 3.08 . 99 - . 33 -.37 -.36 . 59 . 42 - -
7 2.08 . 88 - . 31 -.21 -.30 . 17 . 44 . 24--
8 3.64 .88-.49 -.43 -.37 .71 .38 .47 .28 --
9 3.15 .98-.40 -.36 -.39 .60 .34 .49 .34 .70 --
10 2.84 .73-.21 -.26-.17.45 .25 .42 .45 .49 .69 --
eleven 3.07 .71.14 -.15 -.11 .17 .14.23.fifteen.33 .37 .46 --
12 3.37 .74-.48 -.41 -.49 .71 .51 .63 .31 .71 .74 .55 .25 --
note :p< .05 (landscape);p< .01 (bold font)

Note: Organizational cynicism (1: cynical ideas, 2: cynical behaviors and 3: cynical
emotions); Organizational trust (4: promotion of growth, 5: organizational strength,
6: financial recognition, 7: dismissal regulations and 8: ethical standards);
Organizational commitment (9: affective commitment, 10: normative commitment
and 11: calculative commitment); 12: SL (job satisfaction).

As can be seen from Table 4, the three facets that make up CO

(Cynical Ideas, Cynical Behaviors and Cynical Emotions), are
negatively correlated with the five dimensions of trust in the
organization (growth promotion; Organizational strength; Financial
recognition; Dismissal regulations; ethical patterns). Negative links
are also observed between the affective and normative facets

373
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

of organizational commitment, and the three subscales of CO.

Regarding calculative commitment, although it is negatively associated
with cynical behaviors and emotions, it presents positive correlations
with cynical ideas.

Discussion

The results show that from the adaptation carried out, a

parsimonious, reliable and valid version of the scale to measure CO in
Argentine workers has been achieved. It is a version made up of only
10 items, which explore the different facets of the OC construct with a
high level of homogeneity and internal consistency.
Regarding the structural validity of the scale, the three factors
identified through the AFE and confirmed by the AFC demonstrate the
multidimensional nature of the construct. The structure obtained
reproduces the three-factor solution found both by the authors of the
instrument (Brandes et al., 1999), and the one reported in previous
validation studies (Bobbio et al., 2006; Karacaoğlu & İnce, 2012). In this
case, the Argentine version explores the factors labeled Ideas,
Behaviors and Cynical Emotions, respectively. The Cynical Ideas factor
includes three items referring to cognitions about the organization's
dishonesty and malpractice; the Cynical Behaviors factor includes 4
items referring to critical and sarcastic behaviors, while the Cynical
Emotions factor groups 3 items referring to negative feelings towards
the company. These three factors are significantly related to each
other, indicating that they are three facets of the same construct.
However, such interrelationships do not become important enough to
generate multicollinearity problems (Kline, 2011).

The convergent validity of the scale is demonstrated from the strength

and direction of the correlations obtained between the three dimensions of OC
and the remaining measured variables. In this sense, the negative associations
between CO and trust in the organization do not make more

374
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

to confirm that mistrust is one of the pillars on which cynicism is based. Such associations are also in line with published empirical evidence

(Chiaburu et al., 2013; Kannan-Narasimhan & Lawrence, 2012; Kim, Bateman, Gilbreath & Andersson, 2009), which indicates that cynical

employees develop a marked suspicion that prevents them from sustaining optimistic expectations both about people (in this case, leaders,

supervisors, organizational managers, etc.), and about the results of an event (for example, organizational change). While trusting employees

believe that the company will set aside its own interests in favor of the collective, cynics are convinced that the organization will act driven by

selfish interests. The certainty about the lack of integrity, it predisposes them to doubt any action that the company carries out and to

suspect that behind the explicit reasons there are hidden motivations. In this sense, for example, cynics believe that the organizations in

which they work do not provide real opportunities for growth nor do they encourage the development of their careers. Added to that, they

consider that their effort is not recognized or economically valued through the salary they receive, often feeling "exploited" by their

employers. Under these conditions, it is possible for a state of emotional discomfort to arise, as well as critical and contemptuous behaviors

towards the organization (Salessi & Omar, 2014). Cynics believe that the organizations they work for do not provide real growth opportunities

or encourage career development. Added to that, they consider that their effort is not recognized or economically valued through the salary

they receive, often feeling "exploited" by their employers. Under these conditions, it is possible for a state of emotional discomfort to arise, as

well as critical and contemptuous behaviors towards the organization (Salessi & Omar, 2014). Cynics believe that the organizations they work

for do not provide real growth opportunities or encourage career development. Added to that, they consider that their effort is not

recognized or economically valued through the salary they receive, often feeling "exploited" by their employers. Under these conditions, it is

possible for a state of emotional discomfort to arise, as well as critical and contemptuous behaviors towards the organization (Salessi &

Omar, 2014). often coming to feel "exploited" by their employers. Under these conditions, it is possible for a state of emotional discomfort to

arise, as well as critical and contemptuous behaviors towards the organization (Salessi & Omar, 2014). often coming to feel "exploited" by

their employers. Under these conditions, it is possible for a state of emotional discomfort to arise, as well as critical and contemptuous

behaviors towards the organization (Salessi & Omar, 2014).

The dimensions of organizational trust that are most

negatively related to OC are those referring to perceptions of
organizational solidity, dismissal regulations and ethical principles
of the company. Regarding the perceptions of organizational
solidity, it is feasible to assume that cynics will develop suspicious
ideas regarding the solvency and economic stability of the
organization; and that in the face of an imminent financial crisis,
they will be convinced that the organization is essentially selfish.
Such beliefs could feed back emotions such as anger and irritation,
in addition to motivating critical and complaining behaviors, which
would explain the negative correlations between this dimension of
organizational trust and the three facets of OC. perceptions

375
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

The lack of clear regulations on dismissal are coherent if one considers

that from the perspective of the organizational cynic, an employee can
be arbitrarily dismissed because managers tend to rely more on
personal judgments than on legal regulations. The state of suspicion
and insecurity that such ideas promote inevitably leads to an increase
in negative affectivity and dismissive behaviors against the
organization as a way of dealing with a situation that is considered
unfair and dishonest. Finally, the negative correlations observed
between the perception of ethical patterns and the three facets of OC
provide new empirical support to the results previously reported in the
literature. The classical theory on CO (Abraham, 2000; Andersson &
Bateman, 1997; Dean et al., 1998), He has stressed that the cynic has
the firm conviction that the organization in which he works is not
ethical; and that the principles of honesty, fairness and fairness have
been undermined in favor of the personal interests of senior
management. Therefore, the certainty about the dishonest and
unscrupulous way in which managers manage to achieve their goals
could logically arouse a state of anger, irritation and pessimism,
accentuating the cynic's predisposition to reproach and question the
practices and organizational policies.
Regarding the relationships between organizational
commitment and OC, we must not lose sight of the fact that
cynical workers have problems establishing an affective
bond with the employing organization. As various authors
have highlighted (Rubin, Dierdorff, Bommer & Baldwin,
2009; Türköz, et al., 2013; Watt & Piotrowsky, 2008), cynics
fail to identify with the organizational culture, nor can they
proactively contribute so that the company achieve its goals
and objectives. Instead of developing an emotional
attachment to the organization, cynics experience a wide
range of negative feelings, ranging from anger to
hopelessness, as indicated by the negative links between
affective commitment and cynical emotionality.

376
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

The calculated commitment is based on a speculative analysis by

the employee of the high costs of leaving the organization. The worker
remains in his job because the cost-benefit ratio tells him that if he
resigns, he would lose more than he would gain (Omar, 2010). In the
case of the cynic, despite his discomfort with his status as a member of
an organization that, from his point of view, is dishonest and
unscrupulous, he would conclude that the damages would outweigh
the benefits that would result from voluntary disassociation. of the. He
could consider, for example, that he has made great personal
sacrifices, that his family would be seriously affected, that depending
on the labor market alternatives, he has little chance of finding a new
job, and the like. In any case, His decision to continue in the
organization would be based solely on necessity, and not on a genuine
desire to belong and form part (which in the words of Jorge Luis
Borges would translate as "love does not unite us, but fear...") . This
situation is demonstrated by the fact that, even in the face of high
levels of calculative commitment, emotional discomfort and negative
behaviors towards the organization persist.
Finally, the negative correlations between the OC components
and job satisfaction provide empirical support to the conjectures
anticipated by pioneering publications on the subject (Abraham, 2000;
Andersson & Bateman, 1997). It has been pointed out, for example,
that in a scenario marked by mistrust and a lack of desire to be part of
the organization in which one works, negative emotional responses
will prevail. In full agreement with such theoretical speculations, the
results obtained allow us to point out that cynics do not experience job
satisfaction, possibly because they find themselves in an environment
in which they do not feel comfortable and with which they do not bond
positively.

Strengths and weaknesses of the research carried out

Like all empirical work, the present also contains strengths and
weaknesses. Among its limitations, it is necessary to highlight the
composition of the sample under study, since its selection by availability

377
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

would prevent the generalization of the results to the entire

population of Argentine workers. However, in an attempt to
reduce the impact of this limitation, efforts were made for
the sample to include companies and institutions from the
most different fields and levels of organizational complexity
(Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Another weakness of the study
could be linked to the self-descriptive nature of the
instruments used for data collection, an aspect that could
have generated some biases derived from the variance of
the common method, as well as responses contaminated by
social desirability, considering that it is a sensitive subject.
Regarding this last aspect,

Among the strengths, it is convenient to highlight that

this work constitutes the first attempt to validate the OC
construct in a Latin American country, being the corollary of
the efforts that have been carried out in order to explore the
issue in the region (Salessi, 2011; Salessi & Omar, 2014).
Therefore, it represents a genuine contribution so that other
researchers are interested in this problem and develop
empirical studies with the use of an instrument with proven
psychometric properties. The validation of the OC Scale with
samples from Argentine subjects leaves open the possibility
to carry out validation studies in other countries of the
subcontinent. This would be an ideal way to verify the cross-
cultural validity of the instrument presented here. As an
agenda for future studies,

378
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Ethical implications of the use of the CO Scale

OC constitutes a dangerous reality that has infiltrated

contemporary organizations, eroding both their foundations
and the well-being of their members. Such is the magnitude of
this problem that, for some authors (Cartwright & Holmes,
2006), OC constitutes the new paradigm of postmodern labor
relations. The current organizational reality, marked by the
emphasis on efficiency and control, has had a negative impact
on workers, resulting in a decrease in trust and a reluctance to
invest in the employment relationship. As a result, the level of
performance and commitment to work are seriously affected,
ultimately translating into a loss of income for companies.
Faced with this scenario, Organizations are expected to be
interested in quickly identifying cynical members, with a view to
preventing their effectiveness and productivity from being
affected. Hence the need to discuss the ethical implications
resulting from the use of an instrument to measure CO. In this
sense, the purpose behind this study has not been to develop a
control tool that managers and executives can use to sanction
and even dismiss employees who show high levels of cynicism.
On the contrary, the aim pursued has been to provide
organizational specialists with a diagnostic tool that can
provide information to optimize working conditions, improving
the effectiveness of the company and the well-being of
employees (Omar, Vaamonde & Uribe Delgado, 2012 ).
The OC scale, far from having been developed as a
device to monitor employee behavior, or a resource to
punish or harass those who report high levels of suspicion; It
has been conceived as an instrument capable of providing
accurate information in order to implement responsible
human resources management policies. It is hoped that the
information provided can be capitalized for the design of
interventions on some aspects of the functioning of the

379
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

organizations, as a way of contributing to the reduction of mistrust

and pessimism. Among such aspects, for example, it has been
shown that effective communication around changes (Qian &
Daniels, 2008), the ethical behavior of organizational authorities
(English & Chalon, 2011), transparency in the compensation of high
management (Welsh, Ganegoda, Arvey, Wiley & Budd, 2012),
corporate social responsibility (Aqueveque & Encina, 2010), among
others, are effective "antidotes" to counteract CO. In other words,
organizations that promote trust in management and are
concerned with creating a climate of organizational integrity and
justice will benefit from less cynical and distrustful employees, and
more committed and satisfied ones.

References

Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and conse-

quences.Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126,
269-292.
Andersson, LM & Bateman, TS (1997). Cynicism in the workplace:
Some causes and effects.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18
(5), 449-469.
Aqueveque, C. & Encina, C. (2010). Corporate behavior, social cyni-
cism, and their effect on individuals' perceptions of the company.
Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 311-324.
Barton, L. & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of orga-
Organizational change cynicism on middle manager strategy
commitment.The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(4), 721-746.
Bateman, T.S., Sakano, T. & Fujita, M. (1992). Roger, me, and my
attitude: Film propaganda and cynicism towards corporate
leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,768-771.
Bobbio, A., Manganelli Rattazzi, AM & Spadaro, S. (2006). Il
organizational cynicism. A contribution to the Italian adaptation

380
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

della scala di Brandes, Dharwadkar and Dean (1999).Testing

Psychometrics Methodology, 13(1), 5-23.
Brandes, P. & Das, D. (2006). Locating behavioral cynicism at work:
Construct issues and performance implications. In P.L. Perrewé &
D.C. Ganster (Eds.),Employee health, coping and methodologies(pp.
233-266). Philadelphia: Elsevier Science.
Brandes, P., Das, D. & Hadani, M. (2006). Organizational cynicism:
A field examination using global and local social exchange
relationships and workplace outcomes. In G. Graen & J. Graen
(Eds.),Sharing Network Leadership(pp. 191-224). Greenwich:
Information Age Publishing.
Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R. & Dean, J. (1999). Does organizational
cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work
outcomes.Eastern Academy of Management Best Papers
Proceedings,150-153.
Byrne, B.M. (2010).Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming(2naEd.). New York:
Taylor and Francis Group.
Cartwright, S. & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The chal-
Lenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing
cynicism. Human Resource Management Review 16, 199-208.
Chiaburu, DS, Peng, AC, Oh, I., Banks, GC & Lomeli, LC
(2013). Antecedents and consequences of employee
organizational cynicism: A meta-analysis.Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 83(2), 181-197.
Cook, W.W. & Medley, D.M. (1954). Proposed hostility and phar-
isaic-virtue scales for the MMPI.Journal of Applied Psychology,
38, 414-418.
Dean, JW, Brandes, P. & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational
cynicism.Academy of Management Review, 23, 341-352. Didier
Pino, N., Martí del Campo, A. & Valdenegro Ibarra, D. (2012).
Managing organizational cynicism: The leader's opportunity. Ibero-
American Journal of Psychology: Science and Technology, 5(2), 7-15.

381
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

English, B. & Chalon, C. (2011). Strengthening affective organization

tional commitment: The influence of fairness perceptions of
management practices and underlying employee cynicism.The
Health Care Manager, 30(1), 29-35.
Evans, W., Goodman, J. & Davis, W. (2011). The impact of perceived
corporate citizenship on organizational cynicism, OCB, and
employee deviance.Human Performance, 24(1), 79-97. Fleming,
P. & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: It implies
tions for power subjectivity and resistance.organization, 10(1),
157-179.
Flowers, JM (2011).Predictors of job satisfaction. A study in
metal-mechanical companies in Santa Fe. Unpublished Master's
Thesis in Business Administration. National Technological
University, Rosario Regional Faculty.
Gkorezis, P., Petridou, E. & Xanthiakos, P. (2014). leader positive
humor and organizational cynicism: LMX as a mediator.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(4), 305-315.
Grama, B. (2013). Cinism în schimbările organizaţionale.Management
Intercultural, 29(3), 137-142.
Hair, JE, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE & Tatham R.
L. (2006).Multivariate Data Analysis(6thEd.). Upper Saddle
River: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Hasselmann, MH & Reichenheim, ME (2003). Cross-cultural
adaptation of the Portuguese version of the Conflict Tactics
Scales Form R (CTS-1) used to assess marital violence: Semantic
and measurement equivalence.Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 19
(4), 1083-1093.
Herdman, M., Fox-Rushby, J. & Badía, X. (1998). A Model of equiva-
Lence in the cultural adaptation of HRQOL instruments: The
universalist approach.Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 323-335.
Kan, MA (2014). Organizational cynicism and employee turnover
intention: Evidence from banking sector in Pakistan.Pakistan
Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 8(1), 30-41.

382
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Kannan-Narasimhan, R. & Lawrence, B. (2012). Behavioral integrity:

How leader refer and trust matter to workplace outcomes.
Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 165-178.
Kanter, DL & Mirvis, PH (1989).The Cynical Americans: Living
and working in an age of discontent and disillusionment. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Karacaoğlu, K. & Ince, GF (2012). The effects of positive organi-
Zational behavior on organizational cynicism: A case study
Kayseri's manufacturing industry.Journal of Faculty of
Economics & Administrative Sciences, 18(1), 181-202.
Kim, T., Bateman, T., Gilbreath, L. & Andersson, L. (2009). Top man-
Agement credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive
model.human relations,62(10), 1435-1458.
Kline, R.B. (2011).Principles and practice of structural equation model-
ing(3EdEd.). New York: Guilford.
Macdonald, S. & MacIntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction
scale.Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13, 1-16.
Martínez Lugo, M., Aponte, R., Quintero, M., Lindenmann, M.,
Gomez, K., Vaello, G. et al. (2005, November 4).Burnout
syndrome and organizational cynicism: an exploratory
study. Paper presented at the Fifty-second Annual
Convention of the Puerto Rico Psychological
Association. San Juan Puerto Rico.
Meyer, JP & Allen, NJ (1991). A three component conceptualization
of organizational commitment,Human Resource Management
Review, 1, 61-98.
Neves, P. (2012). Organizational cynicism: spillover effects on supervision
sor-subordinate relationships and performance.The Leadership
Quarterly 23, 965-976.
Nunnally, JC & Bernstein, IH (1994).Psychometric theory(3rdEd.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliveira, AF & Tamayo, A. (2008). Confidence of the employer in the organization
niceness In MM Siqueira & A. Tamayo (Eds.),Organizational
behavior measures(pp. 165-280). Porto Alegre: Artmed.

383
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

Omar, A. (2006).The organizational culture of companies and institutions

through the practices, attitudes and behaviors of its
members. Rosario: CONICET.
Omar, A. (2010). positive organizations. In A. Castro Solano
(Ed.),Fundamentals of Positive Psychology(pp. 137-182). Buenos
Aires: Paidos.
Omar, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The role
of trust in the supervisor.Liberabit, 17(2), 129-137. Omar,
A., Vaamonde, JD & Uribe Delgado, H. (2012). behaves-
counterproductive behaviors at work: Design and validation
of a scaleDiversitas: Perspectives in Psychology, 8(2),
249-265. Podsakoff, PM, MacKenzie, SB, Lee, JY & Podsakoff, NP
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Qian, Y. & Daniels, TD (2008). A communication model of employee
cynicism toward organizational change.Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 13, 319-332.
Reichers, AE, Wanous, JP & Austin, JT (1997). understanding
and managing cynicism about organizational change.Academy of
Management Executive, 11,48-59.
Rubin, R., Dierdorff, E., Bommer, W. & Baldwin, T. (2009). Do lead-
ers reap what they sow? Leader and employee outcomes of leader
organizational cynicism about change.The Leadership Quarterly, 20
(5), 680-688.
Salessi, S. (2011). Organizational Cynicism: A Review of the Literature
and some conceptual considerations.Inter-American Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 30(1), 88-105.
Salessi, S. & Omar, A. (2014). Organizational Cynicism: Consequences
on the mental health of workers.Psychology and Health, 24
(2), 269-277.
Sarnoff, I. (1960). Reaction formation and cynicism.Journal of Person-
ally, 28(1), 129-143.

384
Validation of the organizational cynicism scale / Sarlessi and Omar

Schumacker, RE & Lomax, RG (2004).A beginner's guide to struc-

natural equation modeling(2naEd.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Stanley, DJ, Meyer, JP & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cyni-
cism and resistance to organizational change.Journal of Business &
Psychology, 19(4), 429-459.
Tabachnick, BG & Fidell, LS (2007).Using Multivariate Statistics
(5thEd.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Türköz, T., Polat M. & Coţar, S. (2013). The role of employees' organization
Organizational trust and cynicism perceptions on organizational
commitment.Journal of Management & Economics, 20(2), 285-302.

Wanous, JP, Reichers, AE & Austin, JT (2000). Cynicism about

Organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and
correlates.Group & Organization Management, 25, 132-153.
Watt, JD & Piotrowski, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism:
A review of the literature and intervention strategies.Organization
Development Journal, 26(3), 23-31.
Welsh, ET, Ganegoda, DB, Arvey, RD, Wiley, JW & Budd, J.
W. (2012). Is there fire? Executive compensation and employee
attitudes.Personal Review, 41(3), 260-282.

Received: June 30, 2014

Accepted: July 29, 2014

385
 Psychology Magazine,Vol. 32 (2), 2014, p. 357-386 (ISSN 0254-9247)

National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET)

National University of Rosario (UNR)
Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina (UCA)

INFORMED CONSENT

Dear participant:
We are carrying out research endorsed by CONICET, the National University of
Rosario and the Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina, in order to better
understand the habitual way of acting, thinking and feeling of Argentine workers.

Your collaboration in the study will consist of completing the attached questionnaire,
an activity that will take about 20 minutes. You have complete freedom to participate
or not in this data collection, as well as to abandon your collaboration at any time in
the process.

The information collected through your participation will be strictly and

exclusively for our research work, and only we will have access to it. Likewise,
the information you provide will not be identified with your name, to protect
the anonymity and confidentiality of your answers.

Your participation in this research does not imply any monetary or other
benefit. However, your collaboration is very important for the success of this
study and future studies related to the research topic.

If you have any questions or suggestions, do not hesitate to contact us:

Dr. Alicia Omar Lic. Solana Salessi

(CONICET-UNR) (CONICET-UCA)
Faculty of Humanities and Arts UNR Faculty of Law and Cs. UCA Social
Entre Rios 758 - Rosario Av. Pellegrini 3314 - Rosario
Tel. (0341) 4802673 Tel. (0341) 436-8000
[email protected] [email protected]

- I voluntarily and consciously express my consent to participate in the study. I do not

- wish to participate in the study.

Signature: ________________________

386