Content uploaded by Amany Mousa Abdelgalil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amany Mousa Abdelgalil on Jul 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Amany Mousa Abdelgalil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amany Mousa Abdelgalil on Jul 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Adel R. M. Rayan عادل ريان محمد ريان
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adel R. M. Rayan عادل ريان محمد ريان on Mar 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
70
Organizational Cynicism and Counterproductive Work
Behaviors: An Empirical Study
Adel R. M. Rayan
1
Nadia A. M. Aly
2
Amany M. Abdelgalel
2
1.Faculty of International Business and Humanities, Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology
(E-JUST). P.O. 179 New Borg El Arab City, Postal Code 21934, Alexandria, Egypt
2.Faculty of Commerce, Assiut University –Assiut, Egypt.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the relationship between the organizational cynicism (OC) of the employees and
the Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB) exhibited by employees at work. This study was conducted on a
stratified random sample consisting of (327) employees of Asyut University in the Arab Republic of Egypt. The
data collected by the questionnaire prepared based on the organizational cynicism scale of Brandes, et al (1999)
and the counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) scale of Fox (2001).The study found that the organizational
cynicism (OC) was positively correlated with the Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB), where the
significant correlation of the Behavioral dimension was followed by Affective dimension. However, the third
dimension of organizational cynicism (belief dimension) has no relationship with the counterproductive behaviors
at work. Based on these findings, the study reached some concluding remarks concerning organizational cynicism
and counterproductive behaviors.
Keywords: Organizational Cynicism, Counterproductive Work Behaviors, Assiut University, Egypt
1. Introduction
Studies on employees’ behavior have taken considerable part of managerial literature because employees represent
the core element in organizations. Researchers continued their work to explore employees’ behaviors that might
affect the work of organizations and efforts to achieve organizational goals. Employees’ behaviors can be classified
into those that benefit the organization and those that harm it. The former contributes positively towards
organizational performance; whereas, the latter is detrimental to the organizations (Spector & Fox, 2002). These
negative behaviors (theft, valiance, mobbing etc.) are labeled differently by different researchers, but they are all
relate to what we call counterproductive work behaviors (Anjum & Parvez, 2013). These negative behaviors
affect both organizations and individuals (Hassanein, 2011 a: 13).
The Egyptian context studies showed that counterproductive behaviors are attributed to cynicism and these
behaviors were ranging from 3.4 to 3.6 (out of 5 points scale) (Hassanein, 2011, 2013).
Organizational cynicism studies in Egypt are novel and in its rudimentary stages (Nafie & Kaifi, 2013:121).
Also, many of the organizational cynicism studies have been conducted in the developed countries, while there are
very limited discussion on this issue in other developing countries (Bashir, Nasir, Saeed & Ahmed, 2011). This
means that more research is needed to understand organizational cynicism and its consequences in the Egyptian
context. Most of the prior literature in organizational cynicism has been devoted towards understanding of its
impact on organizational change efforts (e.g., Brooks & Vance, 1991; Vance, Brooks, & Tesluk, 1995; Wanous,
Reichers, & Austin, 2000; Stanley, Mayer & Topolnytsky, 2005; Williams, Pillai, Deptula & Lowe, 2012). It is
very important for both academician and practitioners to investigate the impact of organizational cynicism on
employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Shaharruddin & Ahmed, 2015).
On the other hand, the study of counterproductive work behaviors has recently gained increasing attention
among researchers because of the diffusion of these behaviors at the workplace as well as the enormous costs
associated with the practice of these behaviors (Fox, 2001; Atwi, 2011).
In this study we will examine the relationship between organizational cynicism and counterproductive work
behaviors among Assiut University employees. In Assiut University, statistics obtained from the legal affairs
department showed that counterproductive work behaviors are frequent as shown on the table below:
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
71
Table (1) Statistics of counterproductive and cynicism behaviors among Assiut University employees
Source: Legal Affairs Department Statistics, Assiut University (2013-2017).
The results shown above indicate that negative behaviors are frequently happened within this period (2013-
2017) with total of 51111cases. Absenteeism is the most frequent behavior followed by leaving work and other
negative behaviors (such as destroying equipment, laxity and slow progress in the tasks, insulting and criticizing
coworkers, ridiculing the administration and colleagues, threat, and verbal abuse).
Based on the previous studies of the Egyptian context and statistics shown in the above noted table, the
researchers are motivated to examine the relationship between the organizational cynicism and counterproductive
behaviors at Assiut University.
2. Prior literature
2.1 Organizational Cynicism (OC)
Based on the Psychological Contract Theory (Argyris, 1960), organizational cynicism can be attributed to the
violation of the psychological contract between the organization and the employee. This case may happen when
the organization does not fulfill its promises to the employees. This in turn may depress the employees and result
in cynicism behaviors (Bashir, 2011:19).
Organizational cynicism can be attributed to the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). This theory indicates that
work attitudes are results of expectations. So, the researchers attributed organizational cynicism to the negative
expectations of employees that resulted from comparing employees’ inputs to their outputs (James, 2005: 11).
On the other hand, organizational cynicism may be happened as a result of work events. That may affect the
employee emotional tendencies and in turn may affect his/her work attitudes (Brown & Cregan 2008: 669).
Organizational cynicism has its effects on both individuals and organizations. The cynical employee is prone
to anger, pain, hatred, lack of trust in others, disappointment, frustration, suspicion, indifference, alienation, stress
and exhaustion, burning, and other mental and physical illness ( Proefschrift,2007; Naus, Iterson, and Roe 2007;
Brown, and Cregan, 2008; Bashir,2011; Stavrova,2015).
In organizations, cynicism leads to lower morale and productivity, increasing absenteeism rates, conflict,
counterproductive behaviors and intentions to quit, the lack of access to human capital, and the exchange of caution
among workers (Stanley, et al, 2005; ; Proefschrift,2007; Rubin et al.,2009; Nair and Kamalanabhan, 2010;
Bashir,2011; Chiaburu et al.,2013; Çınara , Karcıoğlu , and Aslan and Şerife,2014).
Despite the negative effects of organizational cynicism, there are researchers (Dean, Brandes,, and
Dharwadkar, 1998; Chiaburu et al., 2013) who stated that organizational cynicism has other positive effects such
as: It represents the voice of conscience within the organization; The cynicism helps employees to innovate;
Organizational cynicism may help improve performance, especially when there is a need to challenge and change
ineffective procedures.
Andersson, (1996) has dealt with the concept of organizational cynicism as a unidimensional variable, the
current trend highlights organizational cynicism as a three-dimensional concept (e.g., Dean et al., 1998; Brandes
et al., 1999; Proefschrift, 2007, Atwi, 2012) as follows:
- Cognitive dimension: The employee's belief that principles such as justice, credibility and sincerity
sacrificed to achieve the interests of the organization (Atawi, 2012: 20).
- Affective dimension: represents the emotional and sentimental responses to the state of awareness of the
dishonesty and credibility of the actions and practices of the organization (Ince and Turan, 2011: 106).
- Behavioral dimension: represents the negative behavior of employees towards the organization, which
degrades the value and importance of the organization (Dean et al., 1998).
In spite of the importance of studying cynicism behaviors at work, this topic has not been fully examined
(Chiaburu, et al, 2013; Bashir, 2011) especially in the Arab context (Hassan, 2015:494).
2.2 Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB):
Counterproductive work behavior is defined by Khokhar and Ziaur-Rehman (2017: 327) “as a voluntary behavior
that violates Organization standards and threatens the welfare of members or the organization or both”.
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
72
There are many reasons why organizations are interested in these behaviors, for example: the prevalence of
these behaviors in the workplace, the perpetrators of these behaviors are at all levels in the organization, the
multiple forms of these behaviors, many of which have not yet been discovered, and the enormous costs that may
result from $ 400 billion annually (Ali, 2012, Fine et al., 2010).
Counterproductive work behaviors can be attributed to individuals and organizational factors, which can be
classified as follows (James, 2005, Bashir, 2011, Kanten, 2013):
- Attitudes and perceptions of employees, including: sense of injustice and inequality, feeling of social
isolation or contempt, humiliation and disrespect, the sense of breach of psychological contract, the lack
of awareness of organizational support, and negative attitudes of employees toward the organizational
policies.
- Contingent and organizational factors, such as: work pressure, leadership style, excessive control , lack
of policies to deter these behaviors, employee knowledge of the organization's rules and standards, type
and characteristics of work, organizational climate and organizational jargon.
Robinson's (1995) classification of the dimensions of the counterproductive work behaviors is one of the most
important classifications on which most studies have been based (e.g. Goh, 2007; Shahzad, 2012; Kanten, 2013,
Atwi, 2011). He classified these behaviors into two dimensions:
- The first dimension: the counterproductive work behaviors that are directed to individuals within the
organization; and start from the simple "like spreading rumors" and reach the serious "threats and physical
abuse" (eg, Bashir, 2011; Ahmed, et al, 2013; Kanten, 2013).
- The second dimension: the counterproductive work behaviors which are directed to the organization, and
start from the simple form that causes the production process to slow down and impede the production
process such as delay to reach the serious form that harms the property of the organization, such as the
theft of the organization (Bashir, 2011). ; Shahzad, 2012; Ahmed, Kiyani, and Hashmi, 2013; Kanten,
2013).
Counterproductive work behaviors have their effects on both individuals and organizations (Bashir, Nasir,
Qayyum. Bashir, 2012):
- Effects on individuals: Individuals working in public organizations suffer from many negative outcomes,
especially those who show these behaviors, such as: low morale, increased feeling: frustration and
aggression, tension, depression and anxiety, low self-esteem and self-confidence, and job dissatisfaction,
sometimes extending to include physical reactions and symptoms.
- The organization may suffer from a range of negative outcomes due to the presence of such behaviors,
such as: poor quality of work, increased insurance premiums, high absenteeism and turnover rates,
increased desire to leave work, lower job performance rates, low productivity, and ultimately lead to
organizational failure.
Despite the consensus of the researchers on the existence of negative outputs of counterproductive work
behaviors, but this did not prevent the emergence of a contrary opinion advocating the existence of positive
outcomes of these behaviors, arguing that employees may participate in these behaviors in order to attract the
attention of those who have the decision-making power of organizations, Example: when they find a conflict
between the interests of management with the objectives of the organization, or perhaps to detect the imbalances
in the organization. From this point of view, these employees can be seen as having violated regulations but are
involved in the public interest of the organization (Galperin, 2002).
2.3 The relationship between organizational cynicism and counterproductive work behaviors:
James, (2005); Bashir, (2011); and Chiaburu et al., (2013) indicate that organizational cynicism has many negative
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes on employees including counterproductive work behaviors. In this context,
both organizational cynicism and counterproductive work behaviors are negative in nature. The organizational
cynicism is a negative attitude and the counterproductive work behaviors is a negative behavior that attempts to
undermine the organization; and, in relation to behavior, the negative attitude is usually followed by negative
behavior (Bashir, 2011; Ahmed,et al 2013). Since organizational cynicism is a negative attitude, it can be linked
to the workplace counterproductive behavior. The previous studies (e.g. Stavrova, 2015) proved the existence of a
positive relationship between the organizational cynicism and the counterproductive work behaviors, so the
existence of organizational cynicism may lead to increased repetition of the counterproductive work behaviors.
Based on the prior literature, the main question of this study is to what extent the organizational cynicism
contributes to the counterproductive work behaviors? Are the organizational cynicism dimensions (cognitive,
behavioral and affective) affecting the counterproductive work behaviors and its dimensions (CWB directed to
organization and CWB directed to individuals)? Based on these questions the study model and hypotheses are
formulated.
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
73
3. Study model and hypotheses:
Based on the previous studies and the aim of the study, the study model and its hypotheses were proposed as
follows:
Figure (1): the study model
This model illustrates the expected relationships between the variables of the study. Organizational cynicism
with its three dimensions: cognitive, feeling or emotion, and behavior will directly affect the involvement of
employees in the counterproductive work behaviors in their dimensions (CWB directed to organization and CWB
directed to individuals).
Based on the study model and prior literature the hypotheses of the study will be as follows:
H1: "Organizational cynicism dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions) is significantly
correlated with counterproductive work behaviors."
H2: "Organizational cynicism dimensions (cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions) is significantly
correlated with counterproductive work behaviors directed to the organization."
H3: “Organizational cynicism dimensions (cognitive affective, and behavioral dimensions) is significantly
correlated with counterproductive work behaviors directed to the individuals."
4. Study variables and methods:
4.1 Organizational cynicism (OC):
As defined earlier, the organizational cynicism, the independent variable, is a negative attitude towards the
organization and consists of three dimensions: the belief that the organization lacks integrity and impartiality,
negative feelings and emotions towards the organization, and the tendency toward the organizations belittling.
A 5 point Likert scale is used to measure organizational cynicism. The Brandes et al. (1999) scale used and
adopted by several studies (e, g, James, 2005; Bashir, 2011; Aslan and Şerife, 2014; Shahzad, 2012; 2013, Nafei,
2013) is used to measure organizational cynicism. This measure is characterized by its reliability and high validity,
as translated and used by a number of Arab studies (eg Al-Atawi, 2012, Hassanein, 2011a, 2013). This measure
consists of three parts containing (14) items. The first section includes items (1-5) measuring the cognitive
dimension. Examples of these items include: I believe that my organization says one thing and does another, and
my organization’s policies, goals, and practices seem to have little in common.
The second part includes items (6-10) measuring affective dimension. Examples include: When I think about
my organization, I experience tension, and finally the third part includes items (11-14) measuring the behavioral
dimension. Examples include: I often talk to others about the way things are run at my organization, and I criticize
my organization’s practices and policies with others.
4.2 Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB):
The dependent variable in the study, the counterproductive work behaviors, is the employee‘s behaviors that harm
the organization or its members or both, includes many forms, such as theft, vandalism, verbal abuse, withholding
effort, lying, refusal to cooperate, and physical assault. It was measured using the questionnaire designed by Fox
(2001) and used by other studies (e g, Khan, 2013). It includes 45 items (1-25) counterproductive work behaviors
directed to the organization, and items (26-45) that measure counterproductive behaviors directed to individuals.
Examples of CWB directed to organization include: Came to work late without permission, Purposely
damaged a piece of equipment or property and Refused to take on an assignment when asked. Examples of CWB
directed to individuals include: Did something to make someone at work look bad, Said something obscene to
someone at work to make them feel bad and Threatened someone at work, but not physically.
Questionnaire statements (items) are written in an indirect way asking the respondents about their opinions
on the behaviors made by their colleagues in order to avoid biased responses. A 5 point Likert scale is used to
collect data.
Table (2) shows the Cronbach Alpha coefficients and items of organizational cynicism and counterproductive
behaviors scales.
Organizational Sinicism
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
Counterproductive Work
Behavior
Directed to Organization
Directed to Individuals
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
74
Table (2): Cronbach Alpha Coefficients
Variables Cronbach Alpha # of items
Organizational cynicism:
- Cognitive dimension
- Affective dimension
-
Behavioral dimension
0.89
0.84
0.86
0.73
14
5
5
4
Counterproductive behaviors
- Directed to organization
-
Directed to individuals
0.96
0.93
0.94
45
25
20
4.3 Population and study sample
The study population consists of the administrative employees at Assiut University faculties. The total number of
administrative employees in the university faculties is 2048 (class (1) 309 + class (2) 822+ class (3) 917) as shown
in table (3) below. A stratified Random Sample of 327 employees was selected at 95% confidence level and
significance level of 5%. The sample units are distributed according to the percentages of employees at the
university faculties and administrative classes as shown in table (3). The sample units were asked to complete the
questionnaire made for data collection.
Table (3): population and study sample
Faculty Class
(1)
Sample Class
(2)
Sample Class
(3)
Sample Total
(sample)
%
Science 35 5 104 17 91 14 37 11
Engineering 23 3 55 9 69 11 24 7
Agriculture 30 5 51 8 87 14 27 11
Medicine 40 7 65 10 88 14 31 9.5
Pharmacy 16 2 33 5 45 7 15 4.5
Vt. Medicine 9 1 48 8 31 5 14 4
Commerce 14 2 45 7 50 8 17 5
Education 22 3 95 15 86 13 32 10
Law 10 2 38 6 54 8 16 5
Physical Edu 17 3 42 7 20 3 13 4
Nursing 4 1 15 2 38 6 9 3
Social work 17 3 42 7 20 3 13 4
Specific Edu 15 2 38 6 55 8 17 5
Arts 34 5 84 14 104 16 36 11
Computer &
Information
9 2 33 5 40 6 13 4
Dentistry 6 1 19 3 21 3 7 2
Kindergarten 4 1 8 1 5 1 3 1
Fine Arts 4 1 7 1 3 1 3 1
Total 309 49 822 131 917 147 327 100
Source: Assiut University statistics (2017).
4.4 Methods of data analysis:
Data is analyzed using the statistical package SPSS / PC (21)
- Analysis of reliability using Alpha-Cronbach Analysis coefficients.
- Descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients.
- Step-wise Multiple Regression Analysis.
5. Study results
As shown in table (4) below, there is a significant positive correlation between organizational cynicism
(independent variable) and its three dimensions of belief, feeling and behavior and the counterproductive work
behaviors (dependent variable) at the level of significance (0.01).
There is a significant positive correlation between organizational cynicism (the independent variable) and its
three dimensions of belief, feeling, behavior and the anti-productivity behaviors directed against the organization
(dependent variable) at the level of significance (0.01).
There is a significant positive correlation between organizational mutation (the independent variable) and its
three dimensions of belief, feeling, and behavior and the anti-productivity behaviors directed against individuals
(dependent variable) at the level of significance (0.01).
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
75
Table (4): Mean, Standard Deviation and correlation coefficients
Variables Mean
SD OC Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral CWB
(total)
To Org
To
Individuals
OC
(total) 2.57 1.60
1
Cognitive 2.88 .99 .860**
1
Affective 2.46 .92 .885**
.612** 1
Behavioral 2.34 .86 .806**
.517** .639** 1
CWB
(total) 1.50 1.23
.386**
.245** .374** .392** 1
To Organization 1.53 1.21
.413**
.382** .384** .412** .809** 1
To Individuals 1.48 1.22
.312**
.173** .323** .325** .960** .941**
1
OC= organizational cynicism, CWB= counterproductive work behaviors.
All correlations are significant at p< .01.
Results of regression analysis shown in table (5) indicate that only two dimensions of organizational cynicism
(the behavioral dimension and affective dimension) have an effect on the counterproductive work behaviors (total),
where the determination coefficients (R
2
) are 15.3% and 2.6% ,with Beta 0.285 and 0.210 respectively. The third
dimension of organizational cynicism, the cognitive dimension has no effect on counterproductive work behaviors.
This result is partially supporting the first hypothesis of the study.
The relationship between the organizational cynicism dimensions and counterproductive work behaviors
directed towards the organization is tested as shown in the table below. Both behavioral and affective dimensions
of organizational cynicism are found to be positively correlated with counterproductive work behaviors directed
to the organization, where R
2
values are 17% and 2.4%, with Beta 0.287and 0.204 respectively. These findings
are partially supporting the second hypothesis of the study.
Also, both dimensions (behavioral and affective) have their impact on the counterproductive work behaviors
directed to individuals, where R
2
values are 10.6% and 2.2% with Beta 0,201 and 0,194 respectively as shown in
the table below. These findings are partially supporting the third hypothesis of the study. F values of the three
regression models are 35.436 with p<0.001, 39.0526 with p<0.01, and 23,824 respectively with p<0.01.
Table (5) Step-wise Regression of Counterproductive Work Behavior on Organizational Cynicism
Variables
R
2
Δ R
2
B Beta T Sig.
Constant - - 0.874 - 10.999 0.000***
Behavioral Dimension 0.153 - 0.150 0.285 3.940 0.000***
Affective Dimension 0,179 0.026 0.115 0.210 3.205 0.000***
*** P >0.001
Step-wise reg. of CWB (organization) on OC dimensions
Variables
R
2
Δ R
2
B Beta T Sig.
Constant - - 0.849 - 10.393 0.000***
Behavioral Dimension 0.170 - 0.170 0.287 4.345 0.000***
Affective Dimension 0.194 0.024 0.116 0.204 3.142 0.002**
** P >0.01 *** P >0.001
Step-wise reg. of CWB (individuals) on OC dimensions
Variables
R
2
Δ R
2
B Beta T Sig.
Constant - - 0,906 - 352,01 0.000***
Behavioral Dimension 0.106 - 0,125 0.201 2,981 0.003**
Affective Dimension 0.128 0.022 0,114 0,194 2,883 0.004**
** P >0.01 *** P >0.001
6. Discussion
The study hypotheses are based on the results of some previous studies that indicated a positive relationship
between organizational cynicism and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., James, 2005; Bashir, 2011;
Hassanein, 2011a, 2013, Ahmed et al, 2013). Results of testing these hypotheses are in the line with previous
studies.
The determination coefficients (R
2
) shown in table (5) are relatively low. This may be because of the nature
of both organizational cynicism and counterproductive behaviors as negative attitude and negative behavior. The
two dimensions which have effect on CWB (in general), CWB directed to organization, and that directed to
individuals are behavioral and affective dimensions. The first has more effect (15.3%, 17.9%, and 10.6%
consequently) compared to the later (2.6%, 2.4% and 2.2% consequently). This may be related to the nature of
CWB as a consequence of personal traits, personality traits ((Penney & Spector, 2002; Anjum & Parvez, 2013),
negative emotions (Krischer, Penney & Hunter, 2010; Khan, Peretti & Quratulain, 2010), lack of motivation
(Osezua et al; 2009), abusive supervision (Shoss et al., 2013) and other variables related to work environment and
some other stimulus of CWB (Anjum & Parvez, 2013).
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
76
This discussion may clarify what we try to conclude about the relationship between OC and CWB. That is to
say, although the organizational cynicism is one of the predictors of work deviance behaviors (including CWB) its
contribution to explain the counterproductive work behaviors is relatively low. This result is not surprising because,
as stated earlier, counterproductive work behaviors are attributed to both individuals and organizational factors. At
the same time, in some of previous studies (Ahmed et al, 2013), organizational cynicism was found to have no
effect on work deviance behaviors. The variables mentioned above in this discussion (including individuals and
organization) may contribute to the counterproductive behaviors. Thus more research is needed in the Egyptian
context for deepening our understanding of CWB.
7. Conclusion and implications
In spite of the previous discussion concerning the nature of counterproductive work behaviors and its predictors,
this study on contrary of previous studies in the Egyptian context, has dealt with organizational cynicism as multi-
dimensional concept. At the same time, having the behavioral dimension as relatively prevailing dimension in
affecting CWB is logical. That is to say that the ability of behavior to influence behavior is stronger than that of
attitudes or emotions. In this sense, organizational cynicism in its behavioral dimension has relatively a strong
and significant effect on the counterproductive work behaviors for both the organization and the individuals
compared to that of the affective dimension. This may explain why the cognitive dimension has no effect on CWB.
Although the averages of organizational cynicism and counterproductive work behaviors are relatively low (2.57
and 1.50 respectively) compared to the previous studies in the Egyptian context (Hassanein, 2011, 2013), the
administration at Assiut University should keep an eye on both of them. That is to say that the open door policy is
required to reduce the tendency of cynicism among its employees. This will give the opportunity to the employees
to freely express their views to managers and administrators without being reprimanded (Nafie and Kaifi,
2013:144). At the same time, transparency, code of ethics, and employees’ empowerment are needed to reduce the
counterproductive work behaviors. In this regard, managers can play an important role in providing the ethical
model to be followed at the university. Transformational leadership behaviors can help reducing counterproductive
behaviors at the university (Ali, 2012).
Also, the findings of this study highlight some human resource management implications. First: at the earliest
stages of recruitment and selection process, human resource managers should use personality-based integrity
testing (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, (1993) as a preventive measure to reduce the counterproductive work
behaviors. This applies also to the selection of supervisors and manageress in the promotion process (Yu, (2014).
Second: human resource managers at Assiut University faculties should emphasize the values of fair treatment,
fair wages and salaries, equal opportunities and integrity.
Finally, this study was limited to the relationship between organizational cynicism and counterproductive
work behaviors. Other negative behaviors at Assiut University, referred to earlier in this study are not fully studied
or explained such as absenteeism and leaving work. These and other negative behaviors need to be investigated in
future studies.
References
Ahmed, W., Kiyani, A. A. and Hashmi, S. H. (2013): "The Study on Organizational Cynicism, Organizational
Injustice & Breach OF Psychological Contract as the Determinants of Deviant Work Behavior". Actual
Problems of Economics, No.2, 140: 145-154.
Al-Atwi, A. A. H. (2011): "Organizational Justice and Organizational Integrity and their Role in Reducing work
deviance behaviors, Al Ghari Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences , Kufa, 7th Year, Vol. 21:167-
187.
Al-Atwi, A. A. H. (2012): "Interpretation of the phenomenon of organizational cynicism in organizations through
the interconnection of the processes of psychological contract and internal respect, an analytical study of the
views of a sample of workers in the Muthanna Cement Plant." Qadisiyah Journal of Administrative and
Economic Sciences, Vol.14, No. 2:. 8-8.
Ali, N. A. M. (December 2012): "The role of transformational leadership as a mediator variable in the relationship
between employees' awareness of injustice and counterproductive work behaviors." The Scientific Journal,
Faculty of Commerce, Assiut University, No. 53: 230-272.
Andersson, L. M (1996): "Employee Cynicism: An Examination Using a Contract Violation Framework". Human
Relations, Vol.49, No. 11:1395-1418.
Anjum, M. A. and Parvez, A. (2013). Counterproductive Behavior at Work: A Comparison of Blue Collar and
White Collar Workers, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 7 , no. 3, 417- 434.
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding Organizational Behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Aslan, Ş. and Şerife, E. (2014): "The Effect of Cynicism and the Organizational Cynicism on Alienation". The
Clute Institute International Academic Conference, Munich, Germany 2014: 617- 625.
Bashir, S. (Jul 2011): "Organizational Cynicism Development and Testing of an Integrated Model A Study of
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
77
Public Sector Employees in Pakistan". Ph.D. thesis, Department of Management & Social Sciences, Human
Resource Management, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University of Islamabad.
Bashir, S., Nasir, M. Z., Saeed, S., & Ahmed, M. (2011). Breach of psychological contract, perception of politics
and organizational cynicism: Evidence from Pakistan. Afr. J. Bus. Manage, Vol.5, No. 3: 884-888.
Bashir, S., Nasir, M., Qayyum, S., Bashir, A. (2012). Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behaviors, in
Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. Public Organization Review, 12, 357-366.
Brandes, P, Dharwadkar, R. and Dean, J. W. (1999). "Does Organizational Cynicism Matter? Employee and
Supervisor Perspectives on Work Outcomes". Eastern Academy of Management Proceedings,:150-153.
Outstanding Empirical Paper Award.
Brooks, S. M., & Vance, R. J. (1991). Organizational cynicism: Initial investigation of a construct. Un-published
manuscript, Ohio State University.
Brown, M. and Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational Change Cynicism: The Role of Employee Involvement
Human Resource Management, winter 2008, Vol. 47, No. 4: 667–686.
Chiaburu, D. S; Peng, Ann, C; Oh, I; Banks, G. C. and Lomeli, L. C. (2013): "Antecedents and consequences of
employee organizational cynicism: A meta-analysis". Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.83, No.2: 1-17.
Cinar, O, Karcıoğlu, F, and Aslan, I. (2014). The relationships among Organizational Cynicism, Job Insecurity and
Turnover Intention: A Survey Study in Erzurum/Turkey, 10th International Strategic Management Conference,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150: 429 – 437.
Dean, J.W; Brandes, P., and Dharwadkar, R. (Apr 1998): "Note Organizational Cynicism". Academy of
Management Review, Vol.23, No. 2, 341-352, [Online:www.jstor.org].
Fine, S; Horowitz, I; Weigler, H and Basis, L (2010): "Is Good Character Good Enough? The Effects of Situational
Variables on the Relationship between Integrity and Counterproductive Work Behaviors". Human Resource
Management Review, Vol.20,:73–84,[Online: Science Direct].
Fox, S; Spector, P and Miles, D (2001):"Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response To Job Stressors
and Organizational Justice: Some Mediator and Moderator Tests for Autonomy and Emotions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol.59, No.3:291–309, [Online:idealibrary.com].
Galperin, B. L. (2002): "Determinants of deviance in the workplace; An Empirical Examination in Canada and
Mexico". PhD thesis, Concordia University.
Goh, A. (2007): "An Attribution Analysis of Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response to
Occupational Stress". PhD dissertation, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida.
Hassan, M. H. (2015): "Violation of the psychological contract as a mediator in the relationship between the
realization of organizational justice and organizational cynicism: a field study on the Egyptian Public Tax
Authority, Journal of Financial and Commercial Research, Faculty of Commerce, Port Said University, 3, ;
452-488.
Hassanein, O. A. (June 2011 b): "Analysis of the relationship between the deviation of colleagues and deviation
of the individual: a field study." Journal of Contemporary Business Research, Faculty of Commerce, Sohag
University, Vol. 24, No. 1:130-171, [Online: mandumah.Com].
Hassanein, O. A. (June 2011a): "Analyzing the Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Anti-Productive
Work Behavior", Journal of Contemporary Business Research, Faculty of Commerce, Sohag University,
Vol.24, no. 1: 1-52.
Hassanein, O. A. (June 2013): "Violation of the psychological contract and the perceptions of political behavior as
determinants of organizational cynicism and its relation to anti-productive work behaviors - field study",
Journal of Contemporary Business Research, Faculty of Commerce, Sohag University, vol.26, No. 1: 71-
111.
Ince, M., & Turan, S. (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.
Ince, M., & Turn, S.(2011): "Organizational Cynicism as A Factor the effects the Organizational Change in the
Process of Globalization and n Application in Karman’s Public Institutions". European Journal of Economics,
Finance and Administrative sciences, Issue.37,104-121.
James, M. S. L. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of cynicism in organization: An examination of the
potential positive and negative effects on school systems. Tallahassee, Florida: The Florida State University
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). [Online: http://diginole.lib. fsu. edu/etd].
Johnson, J., and O’Leary-Kelly, A. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational
cynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 627–
647.
Kanten, P and Er Ülker, F (2013): "The Effect of Organizational Climate on Counterproductive Behaviors: An
Empirical Study on the Employees of Manufacturing Enterprises". The Macro
theme Review: A
multidisciplinary journal of global macro trends, Vol. 2, No.4 :144-160.
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
78
Khan, A., Quratulain, S., Peretti, J., (2010), Organizational Justice, Discrete Emotions and Counterproductive
Work Behaviors, 25th annual meeting of “Society for industrial and organizational psychology”, April 8-10,
2010. Society for industrial and organizational psychology, Atlanta, USA.
Khan, A; Quratulain, S and Crawshaw, J(2013): " The Mediating Role of Discrete Emotions in the Relationship
Between Injustice and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: A Study in Pakistan". Journal of Business
Psychology, Vol.28:49–61.
Khokhar, A and Ziaur-Rehman, M. (2017): "Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Performance: Mediating
Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior". Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol.1, No.1 :321-350.
Krischer, M., Penney, L., Hunter, E. (2010). Can Counterproductive Work Behaviors Be Productive? CWB as
Emotion-Focused Coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol.15, No. 2: 154–166.
Nafei, Wageeh A. and Kaifi, Belal A. (2013): "The Impact of Organizational Cynicism on Organizational
Commitment: An Applied Study on Teaching Hospitals in Egypt". European Journal of Business and
Management, Vol.5, No.12, pp:131-147, [Online: www.iiste.org].
Nair, P. and Kamalanabhan, T. J.(2010 a): "The Impact Of Cynicism On Ethical Intentions Of Indian Managers:
The Moderating Role Of Seniority". Journal of International Business Ethics, Vol.3, No.1:14-29. [Online:
Www.americanscholarspress.com].
Naus, F. Iterson, AD v. and Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect
model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in the workplace, Human Relations, Vol. 60, No. 5:
683–718.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities:
Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(4), 679-703. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679
Osezua, M., E., Daniel, O., A., Emmanuel, E, G. (2009). Staff Indiscipline and Productivity in the Public Sector
in Nigeria. An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, Ethiopia, 3, 461-471.
Proefschrift, A. (2007): "Organizational Cynicism on the Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences of Employee
Cynicism toward the Employing Organization". Unpublished Dissertation, University of Maastricht (ter-
verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Maastricht) :1-144, [Online: arno.unimaas.nl-Cofec
Toward].
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., Bommer, W. H., & Baldwin, T. T. (2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader
and employee outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 680-
688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.002
Shaharruddin, S. and Ahmad, F. (2015, Nov.). The Influence of Job Autonomy on Organizational Cynicism: The
Reliability Test, International Journal of Research in Business Studies and Management, Vol. 2, No. 11: 91-
100.
Shahzad, A and Mahmood, Z (2012): "The Mediating Moderating Model of Organizational Cynicism and
Workplace Deviant Behavior: (Evidence from Banking Sector in Pakistan)". Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol. 12, No.5: 580-588, [Online: www. idosi. orgmejsrmejsr1 2(5)121.pdf].
Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2002) An Emotion-Centered Model of Voluntary Work Behavior: Some parallels
between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Human
Resources Management Review, 12, 269–292.
Stanley, D. J, Mayer, J. P., Topolnytsky, P. (2005, summer). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational
change, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4: 429- 459. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-005-4518-2
Stavrova, Olga and Ehlebracht, Daniel (2015, May): "Cynical Beliefs about Human Nature and Income:
Longitudinal and Cross-Cultural Analyses". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.25, pp:1-17,
[Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000050].
Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M., & Tesluk, P. E. (1995). Organizational cynicism, cynical cultures, and organizational
change efforts. In 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Orlando, FL.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. In Wanous, J. P., Keen, T. L., & Latack, J. C. (1983).
Expectancy theory and occupational/organizational choices: A review and test. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 32: 66-86.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change measurement,
antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization Management, Vol.25, No. 2: 132-153.
Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B., & Lowe, K. B. (2012). The effects of crisis, cynicism about change, and
value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed charisma in the 2008 presidential
election. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23, No.3: 324-341.
Yu, C. (2014). The Reality of Counterproductive Work Behavior, White Paper, The University of Auckland, New
Zeeland.
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.10, No.27, 2018
79
Authors
Adel Rayan (Ph.D.) is a professor of Human Resource Management at Assiut University, Egypt. Currently he is
acting as the dean of the Faculty of International Business and Humanities (FIBH) at Egypt-Japan University of
Science and Technology (E-JUST)
Nadia A. M. Ali
(P.H.D.) is a professor of Management at Faculty of Commerce, Assiut University, Egypt.
Amany M. Abdelgalel: is a Ph. D. student at the Faculty of Commerce, Assiut University.
