A Research on the Relationship Between Organizational Commitment
and Organizational Cynicism
Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Sinizim İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma
Özlem GÜLLÜOĞLU IŞIK,Yrd. Doç. Dr., Erciyes Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi, ozlemgulluoglu@gmail.com
Abstract
Organizational commitment concept has been one of the most important subjects recently as transforming from industrial society to information and consumption society. Organizational commitment is a psychological situation that shapes the relation of management with worker and provides the decision to continue to work in management. Organizational cynicism as a different dimension of the study appears as a negative behavior towards the organization in which one works. Personnel, psychological breach of contract, lacks in management behaviors…etc are among the reasons of organizational cynicism. Both of two concepts are dealt with relating different organizational outputs in literature but especially in Turkish, studies dealing with the possible relation of two concepts are really limited. This paper is written in order to take a step in meeting the needs. So as to contribute to the discussion process for this subject, organizational commitment and organizational cynicism scale are applied to 412 workers, from the hotels in Kayseri and 6 of them are 3-stared and 4 of them are 4-stared. So, results are tried to be argued in terms of organizational dynamics. Questionnaire study is preferred as a research technique. Organizational commitment is tried to be evaluated through organizational commitment scale, developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) and organizational cynicism is tried to be evaluated through organizational cynicism scale, developed by Dean (1998). In the study result, it is realized that cynicism levels of workers affected by commitment levels for their organization.
Öz
Endüstriyel üretim toplumundan bilgi ve tüketim toplumuna geçerken, örgütsel bağlılık son yıllarda üzerinde en çok durulan kavramlar arasındadır. Örgütsel bağlılık, çalışanın işletmeyle olan ilişkisini şekillendiren, işletmede çalışmaya devam etme kararının alınmasını sağlayan psikolojik bir durumdur. Çalışmanın bir diğer boyutu olan örgütsel sinizm ise, kişinin çalıştığı örgüte yönelik olumsuz tutumu olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Örgütsel sinizmin nedenleri arasında kişilik, psikolojik sözleşme ihlali, liderlik davranışındaki eksiklikler vb. sayılmaktadır. Literatürde her iki kavram farklı örgütsel çıktılarla ilişkilendirilerek ele alınmış ancak özellikle Türkçe literatürde her iki kavramın muhtemel ilişkisine değinen çalışma sayısı sınırlı kalmıştır. Bu çalışma, iletişim alanındaki bu açığı kapatma noktasında bir adım atmak amacıyla kaleme alınmış; konuya yönelik tartışma sürecine katkı sağlamak amacıyla Kayseri’de faaliyet gösteren 6’sı 3 yıldızlı, 4’ü 4 yıldızlı olmak üzere konaklama işletmelerinin 412 çalışanına örgütsel bağlılık ve örgütsel sinizm ölçeği uygulanarak, sonuçlar örgütsel dinamikler bağlamında tartışılmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırma yöntemi olarak anket çalışması tercih edilmiş; örgütsel bağlılık Allen ve Meyer (1990) tarafından geliştirilen örgütsel bağlılık ölçeği ile, örgütsel sinizm ise Dean vd. (1998) tarafından geliştirilen örgütsel sinizm ölçeği kapsamında ölçümlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda çalışanların örgütsel sinizm düzeylerinin, onların
Anahtar Kelimeler: Örgütsel Bağlılık, Örgütsel Sinizm, Bağlılık Boyutları, Sinizm Boyutları. Keywords: Organizational Commitment, Organizational Cynicism, Dimensions of Commitment, Dimensions of Cynicism.
Introduction
Whereas the workplace of twenty years ago was a place where employees offered loyalty, trust, and commitment in exchange for job security, training, promotion, and support from their employer, in the contemporary workplace they are expected to work longer hours, accept greater responsibility, be more flexible and to tolerate continual change and ambiguity (Cartwright and Holmes 2006:200). In the 21st century things have been changed because of globalization, technology and work force diversity, now this is one of the biggest challenges for leaders to retain the best people in the organization because organizations are facing Cynicism Problem.
Organizational cynicism can be defined as an attitude, “characterized by frustration and disillusionment as well as negative feelings toward and distrust of a person, group, ideology, social convention, or institution” (Andersson and Bateman 1997:449). A cynic believes that the organization lacks reliability, truthfulness and equality (Davis and Gardner 2004:442) Cynical individuals also believe that things can be better, must regard initiative as futile, and must attribute failure to the system as a whole (McClough et al. 1998: 33). Cynical people were seen also as far less optimistic about the success-related changes due to previous changes that have repeatedly failed. While cynicism is often attributed a negative bias, many authors concur that cynics may also represent the “voice of conscience” for the organization and, thereby, question the suitability of poor strategic choices in the organizational context (Dean et al. 1998:342; Cutler 2000:296).
Over the years, researchers have become more interested in issues relating to organizational cynicism. The concept of cynicism has become the subject of various disciplines in social sciences like philosophy, religion, political science, sociology, management and psychology (Ince and Turan, 2011:111). One of the accepted outcomes of the organizational cynicism in the organizational life is organizational commitment.
Organizational commitment has been defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday et al. 1982a: 27) and a “psychological link between an employee and his or her organization that makes it less likely that the employee will voluntarily leave the organization” (Allen and Meyer 1996: 252).
The concept of commitment is of considerable interest to psychologists because there is strong evidence of links between high levels of commitment and favorable organizational outcomes. At the individual level of analysis, commitment predicts important employee behaviors such as staff turnover, absenteeism, organizational citizenship or extra-role behaviors, and performance. Furthermore, when aggregated to the organizational subunit level, high levels of commitment are associated with elevated levels of customer satisfaction and sales achievement, communication satisfaction (Allen and Meyer 1996; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al. 2002; Gelade and Young, 2005; Güllüoğlu, 2011). Furthermore, Batemen and Strasser (1984: 95-96) state that the reasons for studying organizational commitment are related to “(a) employee behaviors and performance effectiveness, (b) attitudinal, affective, and cognitive constructs such as job satisfaction, (c) characteristics of the employee’s job and role, such as responsibility and (d) personal characteristics of
the employee such as age, job tenure”. Organizational commitment has been studied in the public, private, and non-profit sector, and more recently internationally. Early researches (Hall, 1977; Mowday et al., 1979; Angle and Perry 1981; Reichers, 1985; Bateman and Strasser, 1984) focused on defining the concept and current researches (Riketta, 2002; Greenberg and Baron, 2003; Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran, 2005; Chughtai and Zafar, 2006) continue to examine organizational commitment through two popular approaches, commitment-related attitudes and commitment-related behaviors. A variety of antecedents and outcomes have been identified in the past thirty years.
The relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational commitment has not been thoroughly investigated in organizational environments. Therefore, the current study is trying to examine the relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational commitment at hotelsi. According to this aim, the first part of the study introduces the readers to the focus and aims of the current research. Following part provides a literature review of organizational cynicism and organizational commitment along with theoretical and empirical support. The second part of the study describing the methodology that was used to test the study’s hypotheses, characteristics of the participants and measures used in the study will be explained. In this part, description of the statistical procedures used to conduct data analysis and hypothesis testing, along with their corresponding results will be discussed. The final part will outline the key findings along with a discussion of strengths and limitations of the study, and their implications for hotel institutions, organizations in general, and the field. Directions for future research on organizational cynicism, commitment and their relationship will be also discussed in this part.
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
Organizational Commitment
In organizations where the human factor is seen as the major competitive challenge, organizational commitment is considered as one of the factors contributing to a healthy organizational climate, higher morale and motivation. Organizational commitment is the attitude of an employee towards his or her organization. It is a psychological state that categorizes the employee’s relationship with the organization, and has implications for the decision to continue membership in organization (Meyer et al. 2002). Mowday et al. (1982b) mention three characteristics of organizational commitment when they define the concept of commitment: (1) a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the organization’s goals and values, (2) a willingness to exert a considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a strong intent or desire to remain with the organization.
Nature of commitment has been conceptualized by Meyer and Allen (1991) into 3 dimentions: Affective commitment, continuance commitment and moral commitment.
Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. It
develops on the basis of work experience such as job challenge, degree of autonomy, and a variety of skills which employees find rewarding or fulfilling. These jobs characteristics have been found to be strongly and positively associated to affective commitment but less related to normative and continuance commitment in a study of Dunham, Grube, and Castaneda (1994) among employees from a wide variety of organizations.
Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the cost associated with leaving organization. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. It develops as a result of any action or events that increase costs of leaving the organization. Age and tenure, therefore, can be predictors of continuance commitment. It means that continuance commitment develops among older employees who have longer organizational tenure, although the results are somewhat mixed in this domain and should be interpreted with caution. Based on Becker’s (1960) side bet theory, many other factors have been investigated as antecedents of continuance commitment such as employees’ number of dependent family members.
Normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization. It develops on the basis of a collection of pressures that individuals feel during their early socialization from family and society (Wiener, 1982). Some of the organizational actions can make a person indebted toward the organization, which can build normative commitment (Gouldner, 1960).
Indivitual factors and organizational factors affect the commitment. Greenberg and Baron (2003) listed individual factors as “Age” (Allen and Meyer suggest that older workers are more satisfied with their jobs because they are more attitudinal commitment); “Gender” (Women are more committed than men, although the difference is minor. The reason is that women’s membership in the organization should put more obstacles); “Education” (Graduate weak negative relationship between organizational commitment and the relationship is based more on attitude and commitment calculator with no obligation); “Marriage” (due to financial problems, relationship commitment finds calculator).
Besides individual factors, organizational factors also affect degree of organizational commitment of workers. These factors can be listed as: “Background of the organization and the organizational side” (the person in the history of investment in the organization’s commitment, but the relationship is weak); “Work environment” (socialization of employees, (Meyer and Allen, 1998), organizational climate (Gilbert, 1999) and psychical conditions of organization (Chughtai ve Zafar, 2006); “Role and Work Qualification” (Participation (Lydon, 1997), Otonomy (Gilbert and Ivancevich, 1999), Work History (Balmforth ve Gardaner, 2006); “Other Organizational Factors” (More employee involvement in decision making, work efficiency, job responsibility, equity valuation (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), communication satisfaction (Güllüoğlu, 2011), leadership (Meyer and Allen 1998).
Organizational commitment is important because low commitment has also been associated with low levels of morale (DeCottis and Summers, 1987) and decreased measures
of altruism and compliance (Schappe, 1998). Non-committed employees may describe the organization in negative terms to outsiders thereby inhibiting the organization’s ability to recruit high-quality employees (Mowday et al. 1982b). On the other hand, high levels of commitment lead to several favorable organizational outcomes. Researches indicate that commitment is negatively related to turnover (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran 2005), absenteeism (Farrel and Stamm 1988), counterproductive behavior (Dalal 2005) and positively related to job satisfaction (Cooper-Hakim and Viswesvaran 2005), motivation (Mathieu and Zajac 1990), organizational citizenship behaviors (Riketta 2002) and job performance (Meyer et al. 1989).
One of the negatively correlated outcomes of organizational commitment is organizational cynicism It is thought that employees who held cynical attitudes were less committed to the organization, engaged in fewer behaviors above and beyond their job duties, and were more likely to leave the job, thus confirming predicted relationships (Johnson et al. 2003; Wanous et al. 2000; Scott ve Zweig 2008: 97; Stanley and Meyer 1998; Vance et al. 1996; Treadway et al. 2004; James 2005; Abraham 2000; Barnes, http:// udini.proquest.com). However, the question is, does organizational cynicism simply represent a lack of commitment?
Organizational Cynicism
Over 78 years ago, Betrand Russell (1930) wrote an article entitled, “On Youthful Cynicism” In it, Russell states, “.. .the intelligent young of the present day are cynical to a far greater extent than was the case formerly.” (Barnes, http://udini.proquest.com). Dictionary meaning of the a cynic is “ one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest” (Merriam-Webster, 1993: 323). In their study Mirvis and Kanter (1992:61) describe cynical companies as those that “embody expedient, self-serving values, that support managers who engage in deceptive and exploitative practices, and that communicate in a one-sided, hyped-up, and disingenuous fashion to their employees.”
Research and theory regarding cynicism in organizations are still in their infancy. Due to this novelty, there is no agreed upon definition of organizational cynicism. Dean et al. (1998:345) have defined organizational cynicism in the modern way, as “… a negative attitude toward one’s employing organization, comprising three dimensions: (1) a belief that the organization lacks integrity; (2) a negative affect toward the organization; and (3) tendencies to disparaging and critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affect.” Another definition focuses on cynicism regarding organizational change. Here, cynicism is a potential barrier to change and can be defined as pessimism and hopelessness regarding innovation efforts. On the other side Andersson (1996: 1398) defined cynicism as ‘‘both a general and specific attitude, characterized by frustration, hopelessness, and disillusionment, as well as contempt toward and distrust of a person, group, ideology, social convention, or institution’’. In general, we can summarize cynicism as “people are committed with unethical behavior and negative attitude towards their job and organizations”.
We can see organizational cynicism as a multidimensional construct: people are considered cynical about their organization to the extent that they hold certain beliefs
about the organization’s (lack of) integrity, experience certain types of affect toward the organization, and display certain behavioral tendencies toward the organization. We can conceptualize the strength of the attitude of cynicism as a function of the strength of each of the individual dimensions. However, in the literature organizational cynicism has been evaluated 3 basic components which to be highly intercorrelated: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral dimension (Dean et al. 1998; Stanley et al., 2005):
The Cognitive Dimension of organizational cynicism is the belief in the organization’s lack of honesty, justice and sincerity. Cynics believe that those principles are mostly forfeited. They are replaced by unprincipled actions and immoral attitudes as if they are norms. Besides, cynics may believe that human beings are untrustworthy and incoherent in their behaviors. The cognitive dimension also expressed as denial of the sincerity of the organization (Goldner et al. 1977; Urbany 2005), as the belief that selfishness and fakery is at the core of human nature (Kanter and Mirvis 1989, 1992), or that organizations are unscrupulous and self-serving (Valentine and Elias, 2005) and fall short of integrity (Dean et al. 1998; Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly 2003).
The Affective Dimension of organizational cynicism refers to the emotional reactions to the organization. Cynics may feel disrespect and anger towards their organizations; or feel discomfort, hatred and even shame when they think about their organizations. Thus, cynicism is related to various negative senses. The affective dimension of cynicism also represented in emotionally flavored conceptualizations, such as frustration and disillusionment (Andersson 1996; Andersson and Bateman 1997; Johnson and O’Leary, 2003), or pessimism (Reichers et al. 1997; Wanous et al. 1994).
The Behavioral Dimension of organizational cynicism refers to negative tendencies and mainly humiliating attitudes. Strong critical expressions towards the organization are the most prominent of behavioral tendencies. These may occur in various forms, mostly expressions about the organization’s lack of honesty and sincerity (Nafei, 2013). It is also key to conceptualizations such as hostile impugning and vilification of motives (Turner and Valentine 2001), alienation and psychological exit and disengagement (O’Brien et al. 2004), a loss of faith in leaders of change (Reichers et al. 1997; Wanous et al. 2000), or as distrust of a person, group, ideology, social convention or institution (Andersson, 1996; Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Naus, http://arno.unimaas.nl).
In summary, the cognitive dimension refers to employees who ‘think and experience’ cynicism by gaining information about the organization through observation, perception, or experience and by forming beliefs about it (Dean et al. 1998). The affective dimension points at the emotional side of people ‘feeling cynicism’, who get angry, frustrated, and disillusioned when they believe that deeply-rooted expectations about honesty, fairness, justice, and the desire of being treated with respect and dignity are not met by the organization. Finally, although it is recognized in psychology that people’s behavior may not always be consistent with their attitudes (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977), a number of behavioral expressions and consequences of employees acting out their cynical beliefs and affects about the organization were identified (Naus, http://arno.unimaas.nl).
organizations because it is suggested that many of the employees in the organizations are cynical (Scott and Zweig, 2008: 95). Andersson’s (1996) model of cynicism includes a number of workplace characteristics that may affect cynicism via the moderating effects of fairness perceptions. These characteristics fall into three broad categories. The first is business environment characteristics. Here, high levels of executive compensation, high corporate profits, layoffs, and social irresponsibility are suggested to influence fairness perceptions. The next category is what Andersson terms organizational characteristics. These include poor communication, limited voice expression, discourteous treatment, managerial incompetency, and techniques of management. The final category is called job and role characteristics. Included here are role ambiguity, role conflict, and work overload.
In addition to these factors there are many other factors that may cause the organizational cynicism these can be an individual occupation, organizational change and role of top management (Brown and Cregan, 2008). Beside them, identified lack of respect, lack of opportunity, unawareness and rude temperaments, unfulfilled goals, which inhibits the formation of healthy relationships, increased job requirements and decreased resources are some of the sources of cynical attitudes. Dealing with stress, disagreement with organizational expectations, lack of social support and recognition, not having a voice in the decision-making process and unbalanced distribution of power are other reasons of the organizational cynicism (Reichers et al. 1997; Berman 1997; Richardsen et al. 2006).
However, not all employees are similarly affected by the same circumstances. Situational characteristics of the organization interact with dispositional characteristics of employees in the development of cynicism. People with significant work ethic or other similar values tend to work harder and expect the employing organization to treat them with respect and dignity, and to be honest with others too. The failure of the organization to satisfying these expectations causes disappointment and disillusionment, making the employees susceptible to a cynic attitude. On the other hand, people who care less, or not at all, about the lack of honesty or sincerity, or have learned over time to deal with them, most likely they will not become cynical, as a result of their experiences (Grama 2013:125).
It can be said under the light of this information that one of the dynamics of organizational commitment is the dimension of cynic behaviors of workers towards their organization. In other words; as the cynicism level of workers increase, commitment to organization is affected negatively. So as to test this assumption, a survey was conducted in hotels. Main reason to prefer hotels as a study field is to realize that cynicism is seen densely in occupation groups which need face-to-face communication, which was explained in literature. In the other side of the research, I will try to give place to the research results taken from 309 workers from hotels, 6 of them are 3-stared and 4 of them are 4-stared in Kayseri.
Methodology
Despite the increase of cynicism in business and industry, there is little research on cynicism and commitment relationship, including what they are, what causes them, how they effects organizations, and what can be done to effectively address them. This study aims at firstly determining the degree of employees’ level of organizational cynicism and organizational commitment and then identifiying the relationship between organizational cynicism and commitment according to dimentions. In the light of this aim, we will further elaborate the problem statement in several hypotheses and then, we will test them. Finally, we will draw the conclusions of the study.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
To accomplish the objectives of the study the major research questions which this study will attempt to answer are:
• Research Question 1: What is the organizational cynicism level of employees? Research Question 2: What is the relationship between employees’ cynicism level and kind of hotel they are working at?
• Research Question 3: What is the relationship between employees’ cynicism level and department in the hotel they are working at?
• Research Question 4: What is the organizational commitment level of employees?
• Research Question 5: What is the relationship between employees’ commitment level and kind of hotel they are working at?
• Research Question 6: What is the relationship between employees’ commitment level and department in the hotel they are working at?
• Research Question 7: What is the relationship between employees’ level of cognitive cynicism and affective commitment?
• H1: There is a negative relationship between employee’s level of cognitive cynicism and affective commitment.
• Research Question 8: What is the relationship between employees’ level of behavioral cynicism and affective commitment?
• H2: There is a negative relationship between employee’s level of behavioral cynicism and affective commitment.
• Research Question 9: What is the relationship between employees’ level of affective cynicism and affective commitment?
• H3: There is a negative relationship between employee’s level of affective cynicism and affective commitment.
Population and Sample
The fact that concept of organizational cynicism is densely experienced in occupation groups which need face-to-face communication is mentioned in literature part of the study. In the light of this information, a study is done with the workers of hotels which are an important part of a service sector and it is wanted to help from Ministry of Culture and Tourism in the step of gathering information about the population. 412 workers from hotels in Kayseri, 6 of them is 3-stared and 4 of them are 4-stared, constitute the population of the study. Questionnaire texts were given to 350 hotel workers. 319 of them replied but 309 of them were evaluated because of some problems such as wrong coding, leaving blank the questionnaire. The random sampling was used for collecting the primary data due to difficulty of having access to all of the items of the research population, because of time limitations.
Measuring Instruments
For measuring organizational cynicism, scale of Dean et al. (1998) was used in the study. Organizational Cynicism Scale (OCS) is comprised of the three dimensions of affective, cognition, and behavioral. The affective items reflect negative emotions such as distress-anguish, anger-rage, and disgust-revulsion. Belief items reflect cognitive evaluations that employees have about the integrity and sincerity of their employing organization. Behavioral items reflect critical and disparaging behaviors associated with organizational cynicism. OCS consists of 13 statements. There are five statements in cognitive dimension, four statements in emotional dimension and four statements in behavioral dimension. The researcher has employed the measure developed by Allen and Meyer (1990), which modified by Meyer, et al. (1993) to measure organizational commitment. Aspects of organizational commitment include affective, continuance, and normative commitment. It consists of 18 statements equally divided among secondary measures. There are six statements in affective commitment, six statements in continuous commitment and six statements in normative commitment. A Likert scale was used for judging levels of agreement or disagreement, ranging from (5) which refers to full agreement and (1) which refers to full disagreement.
Data Analysis and Testing Hypotheses
In research, frekans analysis was used for the demographic features of the participants while descriptive statistic was used for the levels of cynicism and organizational commitment. Two independent sample t test was used to survey the link between the cynicism and organizational commitment subdimensions and gender, marital status, variants of the worked hotel class. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to survey the relation between age, education, income and the variants of the hotel class department. Pearson correlation analysis was used to investigate the link between cynicism and organizational commitment subdimension. Significance level was preferred as 0,05 in tests.
It was calculated as 5-4=1 having been considered the given answers for the questions in likert scale,which is maximum point 5 and minimum point 1,in the scales
of organizational commitment and organizational cynicism.Also , tab space was found as 4/5=0,80 for the category levels. In this situation, the categories related to the average point are determined as following:
1,00-1,80 = ‘’ I totally do not participate’’, 1,81-2,60 = ‘’ I do not participate ‘’, 2,61-3,40 = ‘’ Neither I do not participate nor I do ‘’, 3,41-4,20= ‘’ I participate ‘’, 4,21-5,00 = ‘’ I totally participate ‘’.
Table 1: Kind of hotel in which participants work and department information Hotel and Department
Information n %
Hotel Classification 4 star 102 33,0
3 star 207 67,0
Departmant
Reception 50 16,2
Food and Drink 47 15,2 Housekeeping department 41 13,3 Kitcken 44 14,2 Accountancy 25 8,1 Purchasing 24 7,8 Sales&Marketing 34 11,0 Human Resources 19 6,1 Technical Service 25 8,1
It is a 4-star hotel that 102 of participants (%33,0) work in while 207 of participants (%67,0) work in 3-star hotel. 50 of participants (%16,2) work in Reception and 47 of participants(%15,2) work in food-drink department and 41 of participants(%13,3) work in housekeeping and 44 of participants(%14,2) work in kitchen and 25 of participants (%8,1) work in accounting department and 24 of participants (%76,8) work in buying department and 34 of participant(%11,0) work in marketing and sale department and 19 of participants(%6,1) work in human sources department and 25 of participants(%8) work in technical service department.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Cynicism Scale Subdimentions
Variable X SS Min. Max.
Cognitive Dimention 2,98 0,90 1,60 4,40 Emotional Dimention 2,60 0,97 1,00 4,25 Behavioral Dimention 3,30 0,75 1,67 4,50
In cynicism scale, Cognitive dimension average point is 2,98±0,90 and Affective dimension average point is 2,60±0,97 in cynicism scale and Behavioral dimension average point is 3,30±0,75 in cynicism scale. It is seen that all dimensions are in level of “Neither I participate nor I do”
Table 3: T Test Results for the relationship between Cynicism Level and Hotel Classification Hotel
Classification n X SS sd t p
Cognitive
Dimention 4 star3 star 102206 2,743,10 0,820,92 306 -3,404 0,001 Emotional
Dimention 4 star3 star 102206 2,362,71 0,920,97 306 -3,072 0,002 Behavioral
Dimention 4 star3 star 102206 3,163,37 0,650,79 306 -2,348 0,020
The difference between average points of 4-star and 3-star hotel participants who get their points from cognitive dimension and affective dimension and behavioral dimension in cynicism scale is statistically significant. The average points of 3-star hotel participants, Cognitive dimension point 3,404) andAffective dimension point (t=-3,072) and Behavioral dimension point (t=-2,348), are higher in significant level than the average point of 4-star hotel participants. There is relationship between cynicism level and worked hotel class.
Table 4: ANOVA Test Result for the Relation between Cynicism Level and Variants in Hotel Department
Hotel Department n X SS F(8,299) p DifferenceSource of
Cognitive Dimention
A- Reception 50 2,98 0,90
2,046 0,041
B>F, B- Food and Drink 47 3,10 0,91 C>F,
C- Housekeeping 41 3,29 0,94 C>G, D- Kitcken 43 3,16 0,96 C>H E- Accountancy 25 2,94 0,87 D>F, F- Purchasing 24 2,63 0,85 D>G, G- Sales&Marketing 34 2,75 0,77 D>H H- Human Resources 19 2,65 0,77 I- Technical Service 25 2,88 0,91 Emotional Dimention A- Reception 50 2,59 0,97 1,768 0,083 B- Food and Drink 47 2,70 0,93
C- Housekeeping 41 2,90 0,99 D- Kitcken 43 2,76 1,02 E- Accountancy 25 2,60 0,98 F- Purchasing 24 2,17 0,84 G- Sales&Marketing 34 2,41 0,91 H- Human Resources 19 2,28 0,91 I- Technical Service 25 2,53 1,03 Behavioral Dimention A- Reception 50 3,31 0,76 1,135 0,340 B- Food and Drink 47 3,38 0,78
C- Housekeeping 41 3,47 0,86 D- Kitcken 43 3,43 0,81 E- Accountancy 25 3,20 0,71 F- Purchasing 24 3,24 0,62 G- Sales&Marketing 34 3,13 0,64 H- Human Resources 19 3,04 0,65 I- Technical Service 25 3,21 0,70
The average points received from cynicism scale cognitive dimension show significant differences according to the variants in hotel department (F(8, 299)=2,046, p<0,05). According to the LSD POST HOC TEST done for the source of difference;;;
Participants’ who work in food-drink department get average point from cognitive dimension and this average point are higher in significant level than the average points of the participants’ in buying department. Participants who work in hotel housekeeping and kitchen department get average points from cognitive dimension and this average points are higher in significant level than the average points of the participants’ in buying department and in marketing –sales&Marketing department and in human sources department. (p<0,05). The average points received from cynicism scale cognitive dimension and behavioral dimension do not Show statistically significant difference according to their department group in hotel (p>0,05).
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Commitment Scale Subdimentions
Varible X SS Min. Max.
Affective Commitment 3,19 0,81 2,00 5,00 Continous Commitment 3,21 0,54 2,50 4,50 Normative Commitment 2,97 0,84 1,67 4,50
While Emotional Commitment subdimension average point in Organizational commitment scale is 3,19±0,81, Continuation commitment subdimension subdimension average point in organizational commitment scale is 3,21±0,54and Normative commitment subdimension average point in organizational commitment scale is 2,97±0,84. It is understood that all dimensions are in level of ‘’ Neither I participate nor I do not ‘’.
Table 6: T Test Results for the Relation between Organizational Commitmnt and Hotel Classification
Hotel Classification n X SS sd t p
Affective
Commitment Four starThree star 102207 3,413,09 0,740,82 307 3,273 0,001 Continous
Commitment Four starThree star 102206 3,283,18 0,520,56 306 1,573 0,117 Normative
Commitment Four starThree star 102206 3,182,86 0,760,86 306 3,195 0,002
Participants who work in 4-star hotel and 3-star hotel get average points from Organizational commitment scale emotional and normative commitment subdimensions. The difference between average points are statistically significant (p<0,05). Participants from 4-star hotel receive the average points from Emotional commitment (t=-3,273) and Normative Commitment (t=-2,348) subdimensions. These average points are higher in significant level than the average points of 3-star hotel participants. Emotional commitment and Normative commitment levels are related to the worked hotel class
Both 4-star and 3-star hotel participants get average points from Organizational commitment scale continuation commitment subdimensions and the differences between average points are not statistically significant. (p>0,05). There is not a link between Continuation Commitment level and variants of the worked hotel class.
Table 7: ANOVA test Results for the Relationship between Organizational Commitment Level and Variants of Departments in Hotel
Department n X SS F(8,299) p DifferenceSource of
Affective Commitment
A- Reception 50 3,19 0,83
1,881 0,063 B- Food and Drink 47 3,13 0,80
C- Housekeeping 41 2,90 0,83 D- Kitcken 44 3,08 0,85 E- Accountancy 25 3,15 0,77 F- Purchasing 24 3,51 0,74 G- Sales&Marketing 34 3,42 0,75 H- Human Resources 19 3,39 0,66 I- Technical Service 25 3,29 0,79 Continous Commitment A- Reception 50 3,21 0,55 0,476 0,873 B- Food and Drink 47 3,15 0,52
C- Housekeeping 41 3,13 0,59 D- Kitcken 43 3,21 0,59 E- Accountancy 25 3,20 0,54 F- Purchasing 24 3,35 0,51 G- Sales&Marketing 34 3,26 0,51 H- Human Resources 19 3,30 0,54 I- Technical Service 25 3,24 0,55 Normative Commitment A- Reception 50 2,98 0,84 1,973 0,049 F>B, B- Food and Drink 47 2,88 0,86 F>C,
C- Housekeeping 41 2,68 0,87 F>D, D- Kitcken 43 2,83 0,90 G>C, E- Accountancy 25 2,97 0,82 H>C F- Purchasing 24 3,33 0,76 G- Sales&Marketing 34 3,17 0,74 H- Human Resources 19 3,26 0,73 I- Technical Service 25 3,00 0,82
The average points received from organizational commitment scale emotional commitment and continuation commitment subdimensions do not Show statistically significant difference according to the variants of department in hotel. (p>0,05). There is no link between Emotional Commitment - Continous Commitment and variants of departments in hotel.
The average points received from Organizational Commitment scale Normative Commitment subdimensions Show significant difference according to the variants of department in hotel. (F(8, 299)=1,973, p<0,05). According to the LSD POST HOC TESTdone for the source of difference, the normative commitment subdimension average points of participants, from buying department,are higher in significant level than the average points of participants from food-drink department,hotel housekeeping department and kitchen department. (p<0,05). The normative commitment subdimension average points of participants, from marketing-sale and human sources department, are higher in significant level than the average points of participants from hotel housekeeping
Table 8: Corelation between Cynicism-Cognitive Dimention and Organizational Commitment Affective
Commitment CommitmentContinous CommitmentNormative Cognitive
Dimention
r -0,884 -0,538 -0,905
p 0,000 0,000 0,000
N 308 308 308
According to the Pearson Correlation Analysis results, there is a negative(r<0) and significant(p<0,05) relation in high level (0,70<|r=0,884|<1,00) between cynicism-Cognitive Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Emotional Commitment. In other words, there is a strong avoidant relation between cynicism-Cognitive Dimension and Emotional Commitment. It is seen that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) link in medium level(0,30<|r=0,538|<0,70), between cynicism-Cognitive Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Continuation Commitment Subdimension. In other words; there is an avoidant link in medium level between cynicism-Cognitive Dimension and Continuation Commitment. It is seen that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) link in high level (0,70<|r=0,905|<1,00) between cynicism-Cognitive Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Normative Commitment Subdimension. In other words, there is a strong avoidant relation between cynicism-Cognitive Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Normative Commitment
Table 9: The Corelation between Cynicism-Affective Dimention and Organizational Commitment
Affective
Commitment CommitmentContinous CommitmentNormative Emotional
Dimention
r -0,919 -0,636 -0,884
p 0,000 0,000 0,000
N 308 308 308
According to the results of Pearson Correlation Analysis, It is seen that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) link in high level (0,70<|r=0,919|<1,00), between Cynicism-Affective Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Emotional Commitment subdimension. In other words, there is a strong avoidant link between Cynism-Affective Dimension and Emotional Commitment.
It is understood that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) link in medium level (0,30<|r=0,636|<0,70), between cynicism-Affective Dimension and Oraganizational Commitment-Continuational Commitment Subdimensions. In other words, there is a medium level avoidant link between Cynicism-Affective Dimension and Continuation Commitment
It is seen that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) relation in high level (0,70<|r=0,884|<1,00) between cynicism-Affective Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Normative Commitment Subdimension. In other words, there is a strong avoidant link between Cynicism-Affective Dimension and Normative Commitment.
Table 10: The Correlation between Cynicism-Behavioral Commitment and Organizational Commitment
Affective
Commitment CommitmentContinous CommitmentNormative Behavioral
Dimention
r -0,714 -0,446 -0,691
p 0,000 0,000 0,000
N 308 308 308
According to the results of Pearson Correlation Analysis, There is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) link in high level (0,70<|r=0,714|<1,00) between cynicism-Behavioral Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Emotional Commitment Subdimension. In other words, there is a strong avoidant relation between cynicism-Behavioral Dimension and Emotional Commitment. It is observed that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) link in medium level (0,30<|r=0,446|<0,70) between cynicism-Behavioral Commitment and Organizational Commitment-Continuation Commitment Subdimension. In other words, there is a medium level avoidant link between cynicism-Behavioral Dimension and Continuation Commitment.
It is seen that there is a negative(r<0) and significant (p<0,05) relation in medium level (0,70<|r=0,691|<1,00) between cynicism-Behavioral Dimension and Organizational Commitment-Normative Commitment Subdimension. In other words, there is a medium level avoidant link between cynicism-Behavioral Dimension and Normative Commitment.
Conclusion
Organizational Commitment concept was firstly discussed by Whyte in 1956. It has become an important title in the field of communication with the researches of Mowday and Allen&Meyer. Nowadays, many researches are written related with the subject both in English and Turkish literature. The concept of organizational cynicism was firstly used by Bertrand Russell in 1930 and it took its place in the organizational behavior field with the researches of Mirvis and Kanter. Both organizational commitment and organizational cynicism concepts have become subjects of many researches in terms of the relation with other organizational outcomes. While there are samples in English literature, there are dramatically limited samples of these two concepts’ relation between each other in Turkish literature. Regarding the lacks of this research, our research aims to tie these two concepts theoretically and investigate concepts’ possible relations as a field research.
Many managers of organizations have considered employee’s cynical attitude as a real problem and attempts were made to reduce them. A general feature in this respect was the fact that most of them are focused on the problem of basic cynicism. The proposed solutions for reducing cynicism and increasing organizational commitment of employees included some items such as:
• Seeing opportunities where others see threats.
• Managing more fairly, and operating in an open, honest, straightforward, and particularly, realistic manner.
• Employees must be able to participate in governance. • Providing regular reality checks to management. • Having positive role models.
• Perceive an open and honest pay system.
At the same time, more competitive testing conceptualization and measurement of cynicism and commitment degree of employee should be measured. Without doubt one of the reasons why cynicism is difficult to control or commitment is decreasing may be signal of the important problems in organizations. Therefore employee’s commitment and cynicism degree should be under the control in order to prevent serious problem before. Besides this, future researches are expected to determine how cynicism is related with commitment and how these concept influence employee’s behavior in organizations. These studies should be examined not only in private institutions but also in public institutions comparably.
In conclusion, organizational cynicism and organizational commitment presents a new and challenging research opportunity, which builds on but also go beyond existing constructs and theoretical frameworks. Research on these concepts should help us to better understand a phenomenon that is pervasive in modern organizations, and perhaps to find better ways to manage or prevent it.
References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977). “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research”, Psychological Bulletin, 84:888-918.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P (1990), “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63:1-18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996). “Affective, Continuance, And Normative Commitment: An Examination of Construct Validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49: 252-276.
Andersson, Lynee M. (1996). “Employee Cynicism: An Examination Using A Contract Violation Framework”, Human Relations, 49(11).
Andersson, L.M., and Bateman, T.S. (1997). “Cynicism In The Workplace: Some Causes And Effects” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 449-469.
Angle, H. L., and Perry, J. L. (1981). “An Empirical Assessment of Organization Commitment And Organizational Effectiveness”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-13.
Balfour, D.L., and Wechsler, B. (1996). “Organizational commitment: Antecedents and Outcomes in Public Organizations”, Public Productivity and Management Review, 29, 256–277.
Balmforth, K. and Gardner, D. (2006). “Conflict And Facilitation Between Work And Family: Realizing The Outcomes For Organizations”, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35: 69-76.
Barnes, Lenora Lacy, “The Effects of Organizational Cynicism on Community Colleges: Exploring Concepts from Positive Psycholog”y, internet adresi:
http://udini.proquest.com/view/the-effects-of-organizational-goid:305190503/ erişim Tarihi: 12 şubat 2014
Bateman, Thomas S. et al., (1992). “Roger, Me, and my Attitude: Film Propaganda and Cynicism toward Corporate Leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77:786-771.
Bateman, T. and Strasser, S. (1984). “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment”. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 95-112.
Becker, Thomas et al., (1996). “Foci and Bases of Employee Commitment: Implications for Job Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 39: 464-82.
Brown, M. and Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational Change Cynicism: The Role of Employee Involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4): 667–686.
Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N. (2006). “The Meaning Of Work: The Challenge Of Regaining Employee Engagement And Reducing Cynicism”, Human Resource Management Review, 16: 199-208.
Chughtai, A.A and Zafar, S. (2006), “Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment Among Pakistani University Teachers”, Applied H. R. M. Researh, 11(1).
Cooper-Hakim, A. and Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The Construct of Work Commitment: Testing an Integrative Framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2): 241-259.
Cutler, Ian (2000) ‘The Cynical Manager’, Management Learning, 31(3): 295-312. Copleston, F. (1962) A History of Philosophy. Vol. I Greek and Rome, New York: Doubleday.
Dalal, Reeshad. S. (2005). “A Meta-Analysis Of The Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6):1241-1255.
Quarterly, 15(4): 439-465.
Dean, James W., et al., (1998). “Organizational Cynicism”, Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 341-352.
DeCotiis, T.A. and Summers, T.P., (1987). “A Path Analysis Of A Model Of The Antecedents And Consequences Of Organizational Commitment”, Human Relations, 40(7):445-470.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., and Castaneda, M. B. (1994). “Organizational Commitment: The Utility of an Integrative Definition”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3) 370-380.
Farrel, D. and Stamm, C.L. (1988). “Meta-Analysis of the Correlates Of Employee Absence”. Human Relations, 41:211-227.
Gelade, G.A. and Young, S. (2005). “Test of a Service Profit Chain Model in the Retail Banking Sector”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78:1-22.
Gibson, J.L., and Klein, S.M. (1970). “Employee Attitudes As A Function of Age and Length Of Service: A Reconceptualization”, Academy of Management Journal, 13:411-438.
Gilbert, Anna C. (1999), “The Impact of Organizational Commitment and Work Hours on the Family”, Presented at an Association for Social Economics session at the Allied Social Science Meetings, New York.
Gilbert, J.A. and John M.I. (1999), “Organizational Diplomacy: The Bridge for Managing Diversity”, Human Resource Planning, 22(3):1-29.
Goldner, Fred H. et al., (1977). “The Production Of Cynical Knowledge In Organizations”, American Sociological Review, 42(4): 539-551.
Gouldner, Alvin W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 165-167.
Grama, Blanca (2013). “Cynicism in Organizational Change”, Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 3(29).
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. (2003). Behaviour in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work.. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Güllüoğlu, Özlem, (2011), Örgütsel İletişim-İletişim Doyumu ve Kurumsal Bağlılık, Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.
Hall, Douglas. (1977) “Organizational Identification As A Function Of Career Pattern And Organizational Type”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340-350.
İnce, M. and Turan, Ş. (2011). “Organizational Cynicism as A Factor that Affects the Organizational Change in the Process of Globalization and an Application in Karaman’s Public Institutions”, Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 37:
104-121
Johnson, J.L., and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (2003). “The Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach And Organizational Cynicism: Not All Social Exchange Violations Are Created Equal”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 627.
James, Michael S.L., (2005), Antecedents And Consequences Of Cynicism In Organızatıons: An Examınatıon Of The Potentıal Posıtıve And Negatıve Effects On School Systems (Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy), Florida: The Florida State University.
Kristyn A.S. and David, Z., “Dispositional Predictors of Organızatıonal Cynicism”, internet adresi: http://ojs.acadiau.ca/index.php/ASAC/article/viewFile/785/682
Kanter, D.L., and Mirvis, P.H. (1989). The cynical Americans: living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kanter, D.L., and Mirvis, P.H. (1991). “Cynicism: The New American Malaise”, Business & Society Review, Spring, 91(77):57-61.
Lydon J., et al., (1997). “Coping With Moral Commitment to Long-distance Dating Relationship,”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 104-113.
Mathieu J.E. and Zajac, D.M., (1990), “A Review and Meta- Analysis Of The Antecedents, Correlates, And Consequences Of Organizational Commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, 108(2):171-194.
Meyer, John. P. et al., (2002). “Affective, Continuance, And Normative Commitment To The Organization: A Meta-Analysis Of Antecedents, Correlates, And Consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61:20-52.
Meyer, John. P. et al., (1989). “Organizational Commitment And Job Performance: It’s The Nature Of The Commitment That Counts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1):152-156.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1988). “Links between Work Experience and Organizational Commitment During the First Year of Employment: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61:195-209.
Meyer John P. et al., (1993), “Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension And Test Of A Three-Component Conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 538-551.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991). “A Three-Component Conceptualization Of Organizational Commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61-89.
Mirvis, P. and Kanter, D.L. (1992). “Beyond Demography: A Psychological Profile Of Theworkforce”, Human Resource Management, 30: 45-68.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. (1993). Webster’s Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springield, MA: Author.
Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Mowday, Richard T. et al., (1982b). Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteesm, and Turnover. San Diego CA: Academic Press.
Mowday, Richard T. et al., (1982a). Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press
McClough, Anita C. et al., (1998). “Cynicism and the Quality of an Individual’s Contribution to an Organizational Diagnostic Survey”, Organization Development Journal, 16(2):31–42.
Nafei, Wageeh A. (2013). “Examining the Relationship between Organizational Cynicism and Organizational Change: A Study from Egyptian Context”, Journal of Business Administration Research, 2(2).
Naus, A.J.A.Maria, “Organızatıonal Cynicism on the Nature, Antecedents, and And Consequences of Employee Cynıcısm toward the Employıng Organızatıon”, http://arno. unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=9199, Erişim Tarihi: 25 Şubat 2014.
Reichers, Arnon (1985). “A Review And Reconceptialitzion Of Organizational Commitment”. The Academy of Management Review¸10, 3, 465-476.
Reichers, Arnon E., et al. (1997). “Understanding And Managing Cynicism About Organizational Change”, Academy Of Management Executive, 11(1):48-59.
Riketta, Michael (2002). “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23:257-266.
Richardsen, Astrid M. et al., (2006). “Work And Health Outcomes Among Police Officers: The Mediating Role Of Policee Cynicism And Engagement”, Int. J. Stress Management, 13(4):555-574.
Schappe, Stephan P., (1998). The Influence of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Fairness Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, The Journal of Psychology, 132(3):277-290.
Stanley, David J. et al., (2005). “Employee Cynicism And Resistance To Organizational Change”, Journal Of Business & Psychology, 19(4): 429-459.
Stanley, D.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1999). “Cynicism And Skepticism About Organizational Change: Measure Development And Evaluation”. In D. Miller (Ed.), Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (Organizational Behavior), 20(5):1-10.
Treadway, Darren C. et al., (2004). “Leader Political Skill and Employee Reactions”, The Leadership Quarterly, 15:493–513.
Turner, J.H. and Valentine, S.R. (2001). “Cynicism As A Fundamental Dimension Of Moral Decision-Making: A Scale Development”, Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2):123-136. Urbany, Joel E. (2005). Inspiration and Cynicism in Values Statements. Journal of Business Ethics, 62:169-182.
Wanous, John P. et al., (2000). “Cynicism about Organizational Change. Measurement, Antecedents, and Correlates”, Group and Organization Management 25(2): 132-153.
Wanous, John P. et al., (1994). “Organizational Cynicism: An Initial Study”, Academy of anagement Best Papers Proceedings, 269 -273.
Wu, Shih-Ying (2006). “Corruption and Cross-Border Investment by Multinational Firms”, Journal of Comparative Economics, 34:839–856.
Wiener, Yoash (1982). “Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View”, Academy Of Management Review, 7:418-428.
Vance, Robert J. et al., (1996). Organizational Cynicism And Change. Working paper, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
