The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Organizational cynicism: Spillover effects on supervisorsubordinate

relationships and performance
Pedro Neves
Nova School of Business and Economics, Campus de Campolide, 1099032 Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 May 2011
Received in revised 18 June 2012
Accepted 22 June 2012
Available online 11 July 2012
Keywords:
Organizational cynicism
Spillover effect
Social exchanges
Perceived supervisor support
Bootstrapping

a b s t r a c t
Organizational cynicism has grown in contemporary Western organizations. However, its impact on
interpersonal relationships and consequently on organizational functioning remains understudied.
The present study addresses these gaps by: a) exploring the spillover effect of organizational
cynicism on supervisorsubordinate relationships, and b) examining if the spillover effect extends to
employee performance. Specifically, it examines if affective commitment to the supervisor mediates
the relationship between the PSSorganizational cynicism interaction effect and performance (i.e.,
mediated-moderation). Data were collected from both employees and supervisors (N=274) from
45 organizations. Our results generally support our hypotheses. This study provides evidence that
organizational cynicism interferes in the relationship employees develop with their supervisors,
with consequences to performance. This study opens new avenues for research on organizational
cynicism and carries implications for theory and practice.
2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cynicism has been a topic of interest since the 5th century BC, when the Cynic school was created in ancient Greece. While its
strict meaning has changed since then, cynics are still characterized by a detachment from different forms of evil (Kanter & Mirvis,
1989), including those they believe to exist in the workplace. While cynicism has been traditionally studied with a personality or
societal focus, it has gained attention as an attitude directed toward specific targets, such as the organization (Kim, Bateman,
Gilbreath, & Andersson, 2009).
More than ten years ago, a widely cited conceptual article began by stating that cynicism is everywhere in organizations
(Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998, p.341). These cynical beliefs are characteristic of modern Western societies (Andersson,
1996), and the recent economic crisis and rise in corporate scandals provide an ideal setting for employees' cynicism toward their
organizations to develop. As the mismatch between organizations' rising expectations concerning employee's time, effort and
dedication and their inability to provide something more in return beyond a job increases, so does employee cynicism
(Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). This form of cynicism is conceptualized as a state directed toward the organization that can change
over time as employees face new experiences (Dean et al., 1998). It can develop due to innumerous reasons, such as mass layoffs,
perceptions of psychological contract breach or even the hierarchical position inside the organization (Andersson & Bateman,
1997; Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006; Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). Organizational cynics distrust the organization, its motives and
leaders, and firmly believe their employers will look for ways to exploit them, if the opportunity knocks (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989).
These beliefs have severe consequences for organizational functioning, such as increased emotional exhaustion (Johnson &
O'Leary-Kelly, 2003), intentions to comply with unethical requests (Andersson & Bateman, 1997), and counterproductive
behaviors, such as badmouthing (Wilkerson, Evans, & Davis, 2008), and reduced commitment to change (Bernerth, Armenakis,
Feild, & Walker, 2007) and job satisfaction (Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). However, while we are already familiar with some of
This research is part of a larger study and was partially supported by a grant from the Portuguese National Science Foundation (SFRH/BPD/38197/2007),
awarded to Pedro Neves.
E-mail address: pneves@novasbe.pt.
1048-9843/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.06.006

966

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

the main consequences of organizational cynicism, we still know little concerning a) how it affects social exchanges with other
foci in the organization (e.g., supervisorsubordinate relationships) and; b) if such impact carries consequences to individual
performance. The major impact cynicism has on organizations makes it a key phenomenon to further examine, in particular how
and why it affects organizational functioning.
The present research explores the two aforementioned gaps in the literature. First, it examines if organizational cynicism
affects the social exchange relationship developed between supervisors and their subordinates. We propose that such
relationship occurs due to a spillover effect (i.e., cynicism affects other domains beyond the employeeorganization relationship,
particularly those involving psychologically proximal foci, such as supervisors). Specifically, we test whether the relationship
between perceived supervisor support (PSS) and affective commitment to the supervisor, a key indicator of the reciprocal nature
of the relationship between employees and their direct supervisors, is moderated by employees' perceptions of organizational
cynicism. Second, we examine if the spillover effect extends to employee performance. Specifically, we assess whether the
interaction effect between PSS and organizational cynicism on affective commitment to the supervisor has implications for
employee performance (i.e., mediated-moderation).
2. Background and Theoretical Development
2.1. Conceptualization of organizational cynicism
Organizational cynicism can be defined as a negative attitude toward one's employing organization, comprising three
dimensions: (1) a belief that the organization lacks integrity; (2) negative affect toward the organization; and (3) tendencies to
disparaging and critical behavior toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affect (Dean et al., 1998,
p.345). It is characterized by frustration, hopelessness, and disillusionment, as well as contempt toward the organization and the
belief that the decisions made within the organization lack sincerity (Andersson, 1996; Davis & Gardner, 2004). While at first
sight referring to someone as a cynic in the workplace (as in any other context) is usually not meant as a compliment, cynicism
may have a functional value (Dean et al., 1998). For example, it may help protect people from the innumerous attempts to be
taken advantage of by others. Organizational cynicism differs from other forms of cynicism in the workplace, such as cynicism
about organizational change, which involves a pessimistic outlook for successful change and placing blame on those responsible
for it (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000); or job cynicism (i.e., depersonalization), one of the dimensions of burnout along with
emotional exhaustion and ineffectiveness, characterized by a distant attitude toward the job (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001;
Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996).
Since it is an important, yet understudied topic, it is also relevant to differentiate organizational cynicism from other related
constructs, such as trust. Trust is defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on an
expectation concerning that party's future behavior (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Cynicism is similar to the lack of trust in
that they both involve a negative belief concerning a third party (in this case, the organization), based on unmet expectations. Yet,
several reasons can be drawn that help distinguish these concepts (Andersson, 1996; Dean et al., 1998). For example, one may not
trust a given party based on the lack of available information, while cynicism is usually a result of past experience or third-party
information. Similarly, trust involves a willingness to become vulnerable in face of the other party, while one can be cynical about
something without being vulnerable to its actions. Finally, a person may trust the top management to engage in a specific action,
but nonetheless make attributions of self-interested behavior, a basic tenet of organizational cynicism (Andersson, 1996), based
on information concerning their relationship with other parties.
Cynicism is conceptualized as a global attitude toward the organization. Yet, its significance as a violation of employees' social
exchange expectations is such that it can generalize from one object to another (Andersson, 1996; Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly,
2003). For example, a recent study found that following a layoff, the work experience with the previous employer can influence
individuals' cynicism about a new employer (Pugh, Skarlicki, & Passell, 2003). Similarly, we suggest that organizational cynicism
has an impact on the exchange relationships employees develop with their supervisors, as privileged agents of the organization.
2.2. Spillover effect of organizational cynicism on supervisorsubordinate relationships
Just as employees form global perceptions concerning their valuation by the organization, they also develop general views
concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (perceived supervisor
support, PSS; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). These forms of support provide important
resources by fulfilling employees' socioemotional needs, such as approval, respect, and liking (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel,
Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). High levels of support from the supervisor provide an indication of their readiness to reward increased
work effort, and are a sign of their inclination to provide aid when needed to carry out one's job effectively (Eisenberger et al.,
2002).
According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), the favors and benefits exchanged in a social relationship are indicative
of mutual support and investment in that relationship. It suggests that social exchanges, unlike economic exchanges, may entail
intrinsic or extrinsic benefits, which are not specified a priori. Only social exchanges tend to engender feelings of personal
obligation, gratitude, and trust (Blau, 1964), which motivate people to expand the resources brought into the relationship. Thus,
PSS has been related to affective commitment to the supervisor (e.g., Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003), which is characterized by an
emotional attachment and involvement with the supervisor (Becker & Kernan, 2003), since these are two strong indicators of the quality

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

967

of the exchange relationship between employees and their supervisors (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). That is, based on how
much they believe the supervisor is committed to them, employees develop their own commitment to the supervisor. Thus, we predict
that:
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship between PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor.
Organizational cynicism is considered to be a main violation of social exchanges in the workplace (Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003).
The sense of frustration and disillusionment that is the core of cynicism shapes how employees react to the belief that the organization is
unable to keep its word and fulfill its promises. Therefore, an employee that presents higher levels of organizational cynicism perceives
social exchange with the organization to be unbalanced, thus reducing the effort spent on behalf of the organization.
Additionally, and since supervisors are key agents of the organization, one can expect a spillover effect to occur, through which
the impact of organizational cynicism goes beyond the scope of the employeeorganization relationship, and affects other social
exchange targets, mainly the exchange relationship between employees and their supervisor. Spillover has been commonly
studied in the context of work-related stress theories (e.g., Judge & Illies, 2004; Rantanen, Kinnunen, Feldt, & Pulkkinen, 2008),
and presumes that the perceptions, emotions and behaviors resulting from an event experienced in one domain may spill over to
a different domain (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). To some extent, employees see supervisors as agents of the
organization, working on its behalf (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Therefore, the treatment received by the organization can be
generalized (i.e., spillover), at least in part, to its representatives, particularly those who are psychologically proximal foci, such as
supervisors (Lewin, 1943).
Previous research has found evidence that such treatment from the organization, reflected in employees' perceptions and attitudes
toward the organization, such as perceived job conditions or commitment to the organization (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003;
Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004), is also significantly related to attitudes toward the supervisor, particularly affective
commitment to the supervisor. Based on previous results concerning the generalization of attitudes toward the organization to the
emotional attachment to the supervisor (Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003; Vandenberghe et al., 2004), we expect organizational
cynicism to be significantly related to affective commitment to the supervisor. Specifically, as employees become more cynical toward
the organization, the desire to foster their emotional bond to the supervisor, as an agent of that organization, is negatively affected.
Hypothesis 2. There is a negative relationship between organizational cynicism and affective commitment to the supervisor.
There is an extensive body of literature on the importance of the focal exchange partner for employees' reciprocation efforts.
Since Reichers (1985) argued that one should look at the organization as an entity composed by multiple constituencies, which
may or may not be compatible with the organization itself, researchers began to emphasize the importance of looking at multiple
foci simultaneously.
According to the symbolic interaction perspective (Blumer, 1969), people act based on the meaning something has to them, and they
derive these meanings from social interaction. Therefore, and because the meaning ascribed to the organization and the supervisor are
shared to a certain degree (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Eisenberger et al., 2010), the actions of one may, although not necessarily, transfer to
the other. That is, employees see supervisors not only as individuals in their own right but also as organizational agents, and infer the
extent to which the (un)favorable treatment from the supervisor is indicative of a similar treatment from the organization. For example,
Eisenberger et al. (2010) found, across two studies, that the association between leadermember exchange and commitment to the
organization varied significantly, depending on how much employees perceived the supervisor to share the identity of the organization
(i.e., supervisor organizational embodiment).
In short, to understand the roles played by different actors and how aligned they are with one another employees engage in a
sense making process where they examine the consistency between these actors. As we have previously discussed, organizational
cynicism is an important violation of the social exchanges established in the workplace (Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). Employees
might be disillusioned and doubt the integrity of their employer but believe that the supervisor has little to do with those actions, based
on the behaviors (s)he puts in practice at work.
We propose that supervisors' consistent demonstrations of care about the well-being of their subordinates and appreciation for their
contributions, as reflected by higher levels of PSS, become particularly important for the development of an affective bond between them,
particularly when employees perceive the organization as lacking integrity (i.e., high cynicism). This would occur due to the employees'
need for consistent and convincing evidence that the supervisor is not aligned with the organization's mistreatment. That is, if
organizational cynicism is high, lower PSS will be perceived as closely aligned with the organization's lack of integrity, and therefore
employees should present little desire to establish an emotional bond with the supervisor, resulting in the lowest levels of affective
commitment to the supervisor. However, under the same conditions, higher PSS will demonstrate to employees that this particular
supervisor's behaviors are misaligned with the organization's intentions. This would provide evidence that the supervisor is an ally, thus
highlighting the importance of fostering a positive emotional bond with this person. On the other hand, when organizational cynicism is
low, the strength of the relationship between PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor should be smaller, since in such situations,
the social exchange between supervisor and subordinates is not disrupted by organizational cynicism.
This idea has already found support in previous research. For example, Erickson and Roloff (2008) found that, following a
downsizing, PSS mattered most when the organization failed to provide support to its employees. In another study, which focused
on a different yet related aspect of the social exchange between supervisors and their subordinates (i.e., trust in the supervisor),
Neves and Caetano (2006) found similar evidence. They found that the relationship between trust in the supervisor and
organizational commitment was particularly strong when employees felt they had little control over the change process the

968

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

organization was undergoing. The explanation for these results is that supervisors are substitutes for the organization and they try
to develop the loyalty of their subordinates particularly in the face of a potentially indifferent or hostile organization (Erickson &
Roloff, 2008, p. 39).
Hypothesis 3. The positive relationship between PSS and affective supervisor commitment is moderated by organizational
cynicism, such that when organizational cynicism is high, the relationship will be stronger than when organizational cynicism is
low.

2.3. Consequences for performance

Field theory (Lewin, 1943) suggests that psychologically proximal foci, such as supervisors, are more important in determining
work outcomes than distal and global foci, such as the organization. Supervisors are a significant source of influence in their
relationship with subordinates particularly due to their proximity and power. Their ability to monitor, reward and influence
employee's behavior is much stronger than that of the organization or top management (Lewin, 1943). Based on the norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees who are the recipients of high levels of support
from the supervisor would feel obligated to return such favorable treatment. In fact, several studies have found PSS to be strongly
related to both task performance, as well as citizenship behaviors (e.g., Muse & Pichler, 2011; Pazy & Ganzach, 2009; Shanock &
Eisenberger, 2006).
Moreover, we believe affective commitment to the supervisor is a key mediator of the PSS performance relationship. First,
the proximal hypothesis (Cheng, Jiang, & Riley, 2003) has found support in the literature. Affective commitment to the supervisor
affects both in-role and extra-role performance above and beyond affective commitment to the organization (Becker & Kernan,
2003; Cheng et al., 2003; Vandenberghe et al., 2004). In fact, commitment to the supervisor is not only an important predictor of
task performance, but this relationship is significantly stronger than that between organizational commitment and task
performance (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996). Second, previous research has also provided evidence for the mediating
role of affective commitment to the supervisor, as a reflection of the quality of that specific social exchange, in the relationship
between the supervisorsubordinate exchange relationship and work outcomes. For example, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe
(2003) found that PSS negatively affected employees' voluntary turnover through affective commitment to the supervisor.
Interestingly, affective commitment to the organization was not significantly related to turnover. In another study, Walumbwa,
Hartnell, and Oke (2010) found that commitment to the supervisor mediated the relationship between servant leadership (i.e., a
model of leadership that is both inspirational and contains moral safeguards) and organizational citizenship behaviors. These
results demonstrate that the significant role of commitment to the supervisor for work outcomes, including performance, is not
only fairly stable, but also extremely strong.
Due to the anticipatory nature of organizational cynicism (Andersson, 1996), when employees believe that the organization
lacks integrity and that decisions are made with a self-interested drive, a feeling of imbalance arises. As a result, social exchanges
in the workplace are affected and the desire to reciprocate decreases, as employees respond by reducing their efforts toward the
fulfillment of organizational goals. Therefore, and based on a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), we expect the interaction
effect of PSS and organizational cynicism on affective commitment to the supervisor to carry over to employees' in-role and
extra-role performance. In-role performance refers to the completion of regular job tasks, while extra-role performance refers to
behaviors of a discretionary nature that are not part of the employee's formal role requirements, but nonetheless promote the
effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Research has commonly distinguished between these two types of
performance, and meta-analysis results show that attitudinal variables tend to be stronger predictors of extra-role performance
(Organ & Ryan, 1995).
Taken together, these results strengthen our conviction that affective commitment to the supervisor should play a key role in
the relationship between PSS and employee performance. Therefore, we propose that the conditional relationship between PSS
(dependent on the various levels of organizational cynicism) and performance occurs mainly through its association with the
emotional bond employees develop with the supervisor. These hypotheses represent a mediated-moderation, which occurs when

Fig. 1. Conceptual model. Note. PSS perceived supervisor support; ACS affective commitment to the supervisor.

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

969

the interaction between two variables (X and Z) affects a mediator (M), which then affects a dependent variable (Y) (Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Morgan-Lopez & MacKinnon, 2006; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). These can be depicted in Eqs. (1) and (2)
(Morgan-Lopez & MacKinnon, 2006):
M 1 1 X 2 Z 3 XZ 1 ;

Y 2 M 1 X 2 Z 3 XZ 2 ;

Our conceptual model is presented in Fig. 1.

Hypothesis 4. Affective commitment to the supervisor mediates the relationship between the PSS organizational cynicism
interaction and in-role performance.
Hypothesis 5. Affective commitment to the supervisor mediates the relationship between the PSS organizational cynicism
interaction and extra-role performance.

3. Method
3.1. Sample and procedure
Initially, we contacted 60 Portuguese organizations and asked their representatives (e.g., CEOs, top managers, HR managers) if
we could contact some of their employees and supervisors to participate in our study. In order to participate, each organization
would have to let us contact three or more employees and their respective supervisors. Of the initial poll of organizations, 45
agreed to participate in the study. Following the organization's agreement, we contacted both the referenced employees and
supervisors and asked if they were willing to participate in the study. If both were willing to participate, we then provided the
surveys. We contacted 366 employeesupervisor dyads. Of these, 294 agreed to participate (80.3% return rate). The surveys were
handed out personally to each participant, which helps explain the high response rate (Roth & BeVier, 1998). 20 dyads were
excluded due to incompletion. Our final sample consisted of 274 dyads.
The organizations that accepted to participate in the study were from a variety of settings, including the food and travel
industry (21.9%), health care (13.1%), education (12.4%), manufacturing (8.4%), marketing (6.6%), construction (4.7%), among
others. Almost half of these organizations (46%) had less than 10 employees, while only 12% had more than 100 employees. With
regard to subordinates, 22.6% of them worked in their current organization for less than a year, while 27% worked in the same
organization for more than 10 years. Concerning tenure with the supervisor, results were fairly similar, with 28.1% of
subordinates working with the same supervisor for less than a year, and 17.2% for more than 10 years. The average age was
35 years, and 33.9% of subordinates were male. Educational attainment was as follows: 36.9% less than high school; 47.8% high
school; 15.3% college. With respect to supervisors, only 4% worked in the current organization for less than a year, while 44.7%
worked in the same organization for more than 10 years. Supervisors' average age was 41 years, and more than half (52.9%) were
male. Educational attainment was as follows: 23.5% less than high school; 43.8% high school; and 32.7% college.
3.2. Measures
For all variables, we used 7-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Subordinates
rated their organizational cynicism, PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor. Supervisors rated their subordinate's in-role
and extra-role performance. Cronbach's alphas are reported in Table 1 and are discussed in the Results section.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliabilities. a,b.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Organizational cynicism
Affective commitment to the supervisor
PSS
In-role performance
Extra-role performance

Note. PSS perceived supervisor support.

a
7-point scales.
b
Cronbach's alpha is reported on the diagonal.

p b 0.01.

p b 0.05.

Meana

S.D.

3.40
5.38
5.40
5.85
5.49

1.30
1.13
0.91
0.98
1.04

(0.77)
0.50
0.44
0.08
0.15

(0.88)
0.76
0.26
0.32

(0.80)
0.28
0.31

(0.80)
0.71

(0.91)

970

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

3.2.1. Perceived supervisor support

For PSS we used the strategy proposed by Eisenberger et al. (2002), which consists in choosing some of the highest loading
items of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS: Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) and replacing
the word organization with the term supervisor. We adapted 8 items, such as My supervisor is willing to help me when I need a
special favor and My supervisor feels that anyone could perform my job as well as I do (R). Cronbach's alpha was 0.80.
3.2.2. Organizational cynicism
We measured organizational cynicism with the Johnson and O'Leary-Kelly's (2003) 5-item Cognitive Organizational Cynicism
scale. Sample items include I believe that my organization always does what it says it will do(R) and I see little similarity
between what my organization says it will do and what it actually does. Cronbach's alpha was 0.77. Although this value is lower
than the original value reported by Johnson and O'Leary-Kelly (2003; = .89), it is considered to be acceptable.
3.2.3. Affective commitment to the supervisor
We used a 9-item scale adapted from Becker and Kernan (2003) to measure affective commitment to the supervisor. This scale
is identical to the affective commitment to the organization scale, but the items were reworded to specify supervisors as the
target of commitment, and three additional items directed specifically at supervisors were added. Examples of items are I would
be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this supervisor and I do not feel emotionally attached to my supervisor (R).
Cronbach's alpha was 0.88.
3.2.4. In-role performance
Supervisors rated their subordinates' in-role performance with the Williams and Anderson (1991) 5-items scale. The items
include This employee adequately completes assigned duties and This employee neglects aspects of the job he or she is
obligated to perform (R). Cronbach's alpha was 0.80.
3.2.5. Extra-role performance
Supervisors also rated their subordinates' extra-role performance with the 8-item scale developed by Eisenberger et al.
(2010). This scale assesses organizational spontaneity and includes items such as This employee takes action to protect the
organization from potential problems and This employee looks for ways to make the organization more successful. Cronbach's
alpha was 0.91.
4. Results
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and the intercorrelations for all variables are presented in Table 1. 1 Reliabilities for all
scales were acceptable, ranging from 0.77 (organizational cynicism) to 0.91 (extra-role performance). A review of the correlation
matrix indicates that PSS is significantly related to all the variables in our model, while organizational cynicism is significantly
related to all the variables, except in-role performance (r = 0.08; p > 0.10).
We first conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to establish the distinctiveness of the five constructs
included in our model. For the CFA we compared the original five factor model with a series of nested models: a four factor model
where we combined PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor, since they have a common referent; a three factor model
where we also combined the two types of performance, in-role and extra-role, into one latent variable; a two factor model where
we distinguished all the constructs evaluated by employees (PSS, organizational cynicism and affective commitment to the
supervisor) from those rated by supervisors (in-role and extra-role performance); and finally a one factor model that
incorporated all five constructs. We performed the CFA using composite indicators rather than the raw items due to the large
number of indicators when compared to the sample size, a technique entitled partial disaggregation (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998).
We followed the procedure proposed by Little, Cunningham, Shahar, and Widaman (2002), where high loading items are
combined with low loading items, in order to keep the item-to-construct balance. This methodology has been frequently used in
recent studies (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 2010; Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011). This approach resulted in a total of 18 indicators
(four indicators for PSS and extra-role performance; three indicators for organizational cynicism, affective commitment to the
supervisor and in-role performance) for the five scales that compose our theoretical model.
We used chi-square difference tests (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982) to compare our models. Fit indices
for the CFA are shown in Table 2. The results show that the five factor model fits the data significantly better than all the other
models with fewer than five factors. All composite indicators loaded acceptably in the expected factor, ranging from 0.59 to 0.87
for organizational cynicism, 0.47 to 0.90 for PSS, 0.78 to 0.89 for affective commitment to the supervisor, 0.66 to 0.95 for in-role
performance and 0.65 to 0.90 for extra-role performance.
Since the organizations that agreed to participate in our study were from a variety of settings, we tested for differences in
regard to the variables under study. We performed a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with organizational setting as
the fixed factor and our study's variables as dependent variables. The MANOVA results showed that there were no differences
1
We tested for the impact of potential control variables, such as organizational size and subordinate's age, gender and education attainment. However, none of
these variables presented signicant correlations with any of the outcome variables. Therefore, following Becker's (2005) recommendation, we did not include
them in our analyses, as they might reduce statistical power.

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

971

Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices.
2

df

CFI

TLI

SRMR

RMSEA

206.13
224.34
385.48
588.05
1692.73

109
113
116
118
119

0.97
0.96
0.91
0.85
0.48

0.96
0.96
0.90
0.82
0.41

0.04
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.19

0.06
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.22

18.21
161.14
202.57
1104.68

Models
5
4
3
2
1

factors
factors
factors
factors
factor

a
b
c

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation.

p b 0.01.
a
Equating PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor.
b
Equating PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor; and in-role and extra-role performance.
c
Equating PSS, affective commitment to the supervisor and organizational cynicism; and in-role and extra-role performance.

between settings for any of the measured variables. Specifically, we did not find significant differences for PSS (F (13, 274) = 0.80,
p > 0.05), organizational cynicism (F (13, 274) = 1.10, p > 0.05), affective commitment to the supervisor (F (13, 274) = 1.09,
p > 0.05), in-role performance (F (13, 274) = 1.23, p > 0.05), and extra-role performance (F (13, 274) = 1.49, p > 0.05).
To test our hypotheses we used a bootstrapping method developed by Preacher et al. (2007). Bootstrapping has been advocated by
several researchers as a straightforward and robust strategy for assessing indirect effects, particularly mediated-moderation effects
(MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Preacher et al., 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Previous research has
demonstrated that bootstrap methods are more powerful than traditional tests of mediation (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Additionally, as
recommended by Preacher et al. (2007), we controlled for the direct effects of organizational cynicism and PSS when testing for the
interaction effects. The main results of the bootstrapping analysis are depicted in Table 3 (bootstrap sample size=1.000).
As predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2, PSS presented a positive relationship with affective commitment to the supervisor (B =
0.56, p b 0.01), while organizational cynicism presented a significant and negative relationship with affective commitment to the
supervisor (B = 0.57, p b 0.01). Moreover, the interaction effect of PSS and organizational cynicism on affective commitment to
the supervisor was significant (B = 0.07, p b 0.05). We plotted the interaction and calculated the simple slopes using the
procedures recommended by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). As shown in Fig. 2, the results matched the predicted
pattern, thus supporting Hypothesis 3. PSS had a stronger positive relationship with affective commitment to the supervisor
when organizational cynicism was high (t = 6.20, p b 0.05) than when it was low (t = 2.49, p b 0.05). The difference between
slopes was significant (t = 2.00, p b 0.05), suggesting that the strength of the PSSaffective commitment to the supervisor
relationship is affected by organizational cynicism.
Finally, we tested for mediated-moderation (Preacher et al., 2007) to see if the interaction effects of PSS and organizational
cynicism extended to performance, through its relationship with affective commitment to the supervisor. The first step is to see
whether the mediator is significantly related to performance. We found that affective commitment to the supervisor was related
to extra-role performance (B = 0.20, p b 0.05), but not to in-role performance (B = 0.12, p > 0.05). Since one of the conditions for
mediation was not met (significant relationship between the mediator and the outcome), we did not find support for Hypothesis
4, which predicted that affective commitment to the supervisor would mediate the relationship between the PSS organizational
cynicism interaction and in-role performance.
To further test the second mediated-moderation hypothesis, we analyzed the conditional indirect effect of PSS on performance
at specific values of the moderator, in our case organizational cynicism. In support of Hypothesis 5, the indirect effect of
PSS organizational cynicism on extra-role performance through affective commitment to the supervisor was stronger for high
(B = 0.18, p b 0.05) rather than for low organizational cynicism (B = 0.14, p b 0.05). These results indicate that the importance of PSS
for extra-role performance through affective commitment to the supervisor is stronger under conditions of high organizational cynicism,
Table 3
Results of the bootstrapping analysis.
Predictors

Outcomes
ACS
B

Step 1: main effects

PSS
Organizational cynicism
Step 2: interaction
PSS Cynicism
Step 3: mediator
ACS

In-role performance
2

0.56
0.57

3.84
2.89

0.11
0.60

0.07

2.02

0.61

0.56
0.60

0.10

0.39

0.39
0.08

0.01

0.03

0.64

0.12

1.43

Note. PSS perceived supervisor support; ACS affective commitment to the supervisor.

p b 0.01.

p b 0.05.

Extra-role performance
R

R2

R2

1.23

0.11

0.10

0.06

1.19

0.11

0.00

0.20

2.41

0.13

0.02

1.94
0.08

0.34

0.08

0.00

0.09

0.01

972

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

7,00
LOW CYN (-1SD)
MODERATE CYN
HIGH CYN (+1SD)

ACS

6,00

5,00

4,00
Low PSS

High PSS

Fig. 2. Interaction of PSS (low = 1SD; high = +1SD) and organizational cynicism (low = 1SD; moderate = mean; high = +1SD) on affective commitment
to the supervisor. Note. PSS perceived supervisor support; CYN organizational cynicism; ACS affective commitment to the supervisor.

suggesting that organizational cynicism is indeed a contextual variable that affects how the supervisorsubordinate relationship
develops, with consequences for performance.
4.1. Alternative models
In addition, we tested three alternative models, in order to examine other plausible explanations for our results. Since our
measures were collected in the same point in time, we were mostly interested in examining other possible interaction effects. In
the first model, we examined if affective commitment to the supervisor was an expendable variable (as a mediator) in our model.
Hence, we tested the direct effect of the PSS organizational cynicism interaction on our performance variables. The interaction
effect was not significant, for both in-role and extra-role performance (B = 0.04, p > 0.05 and B = 0.04, p > 0.05, respectively).
In the second model, we tested a moderated-mediation model (as opposed to the hypothesized mediated-moderation model),
where we examined whether organizational cynicism moderated the relationship between affective commitment to the
supervisor and both in-role and extra-role performance (i.e., if an employee is highly committed to their supervisor but cynical
toward the organization, their performance would be affected). In this model, the interaction effect of affective commitment to
the supervisor and organizational cynicism on both in-role and extra-role performance was not significant (B = 0.06, p > 0.05 and
B = 0.05, p > 0.05, respectively).
In the third model, we tested an alternative mediated-moderation model, which examined if affective commitment to the
supervisor could be an antecedent of PSS, conditional of the levels of organizational cynicism (i.e., if an employee is highly
committed to their supervisor but cynical toward the organization, their PSS would be affected), with consequences for
performance. The interaction effect of organizational cynicism and affective commitment to the supervisor on PSS was also not
significant (B = 0.04, p > 0.05). In conclusion, none of the alternative models presented significant interaction effects. Thus, in
comparison with the original model, the results from all alternative models provide additional evidence that the model that best
fits our data is the hypothesized mediated moderation model.
5. Discussion
The results of the present study highlight that organizational cynicism spills over to the exchange relationship between
employees and supervisors, and that this interference has implications for the employees' performance. Specifically, we found
that the relationship between PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor was moderated by organizational cynicism. That is,
when organizational cynicism was high, the association between PSS and affective commitment to the supervisor was stronger
than when organizational cynicism was low. We also found that the interaction effect of PSS and organizational cynicism carried
over to employees' extra-role performance, such that PSS was positively related to extra-role performance through affective
commitment to the supervisor, particularly when organizational cynicism was high. These are important findings for the social
exchange and organizational cynicism literatures for several reasons.
The existing literature has focused mainly on understanding the antecedents and consequences of cynicism. While we know
how cynicism is developed (e.g., Cole et al., 2006; Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003; Kim et al., 2009) and its costs (e.g., Andersson &
Bateman, 1997; Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003; Kim et al., 2009; Wilkerson et al., 2008), we know little about how and why it
affects the social exchanges in the workplace. This study begins to address this gap by empirically showing that: a) the
subordinatesupervisor relationship is affected by general cynicism directed at the organization, and; b) the spillover effect of
organizational cynicism on the social exchange between employees and supervisors has consequences for work outcomes (i.e.,
extra-role performance).
First, and consistent with previous research, these findings demonstrate that cynicism has spillover effects, affecting
relationships other than that with the organization itself. While we already knew that organizational cynicism spills over to the
new employer following a layoff (Pugh et al., 2003), we now know that supervisors, due to their psychological proximity to

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

973

employees, are also affected by it. This extends the existing empirical evidence by demonstrating that organizational cynicism is
without a doubt a main violation of social exchanges in the workplace (Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). If employees believe the
organization lacks integrity and is not trustworthy, they will look at supervisors in search for information concerning two aspects:
a) cues that either reflect or disconfirm such belief about the organization; and b) indications of the extent to which the
supervisor is acting as an independent agent. These findings are relevant as they demonstrate how important organizational
agents (in this case, the supervisors) are in the efforts to minimize, at least to some extent, the generalization of employees'
cynical beliefs concerning the organization to other domains.
Second, it also provides new evidence concerning the relationship between organizational cynicism and performance. If
employees perceive that the organization is not fulfilling their expectations and keeping its word, they will less likely feel
compelled to reciprocate through higher levels of job performance and increased behaviors that go beyond their prescribed tasks.
However, research on cynicism and performance has provided divergent results. While some authors (Kim et al., 2009) found a
significant negative relationship between organizational cynicism and in-role performance, others, like Johnson and O'Leary-Kelly
(2003) did not. Similarly, research on cynicism and extra-role performance has found in some cases a negative relationship
(Andersson & Bateman, 1997), while in others no significant relationship was found (Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003; Wilkerson et
al., 2008). One plausible explanation for these results has been provided (Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003). These authors
suggested that organizational cynicism may have no direct effect on work behaviors such as in-role and extra-role performance,
due to the fact that the violated expectations that lead to cynicism need not be person-specific, thus making employees'
behavioral reactions to the violation less intense. Our results support this perspective. While organizational cynicism does not
have a direct impact on performance, it affects the social exchange process with the supervisor which, in turn, is significantly
related to extra-role performance.
These results are a double edged sword for managers. On the one hand, it shows that if organizations are not aware of the rise
of employee cynicism, its side-effects might spread to other organizational actors, making it harder to deal with its multiple fronts
simultaneously. On the other hand and as previously discussed, it also provides evidence that supervisors, through an increase in
PSS, can minimize the spillover effect of organizational cynicism on social exchanges, and consequently on employee's attitudes
and behaviors. These two conflicting possibilities highlight that the awareness organizations should have about cynicism in order
to effectively deal with it.
Unexpectedly, affective commitment to the supervisor did not present a significant relationship, direct or indirect, with in-role
performance. One possible explanation may be related to the nature of in-role and extra-role behaviors. In the current economic
crisis, employees who are highly cynical or have low quality relationships with their supervisor may decide that they cannot
decrease their standard job activities, as organizations' attempts to reduce costs may make them particularly attentive to such
behaviors. However, and since there is a need to respond to the feelings of imbalance, they may decide to reduce discretionary
behaviors that go beyond the minimum required of employees, such as extra-role performance, as a response to the combination
of high levels of organizational cynicism and low quality social exchanges with the supervisor.
5.1. Limitations and future research
The limitations of the present research should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal
inferences. For that reason, and although our theoretical framework is based on previous research, our results should be
interpreted with caution. Future research should attempt to collect longitudinal data to firmly establish causal paths. Second, data
were collected using self-reports, and common method variance might have inflated the relationship between some of the
variables collected from the same source. However, there are three points that minimize our concerns concerning common
method variance. First, the variables collected from the same source (i.e., employees) were also related to performance, which
was collected from a different source (i.e., supervisors). Second, interaction effects cannot be artifacts of common method
variance. In fact, common method variance deflates interaction effects, making them more difficult to detect (Busemeyer & Jones,
1983), suggesting that our mediated-moderation findings are extremely robust. Finally, recent studies have demonstrated that,
although common method variance is usually present in self-report surveys, its impact has been overstated (Crampton & Wagner,
1994; Spector, 2006).
Third, two aspects of our research may raise concerns about the stability and generalizability of the interaction effect to other
samples: the fairly small amount of variance explained in affective commitment to the supervisor, and the context (i.e., various
Portuguese organizations) in which the data were collected. Correlational designs, like the one used in the current study, have a
smaller power to detect interactions than other designs, such as those involving extreme-groups, and thus limit the possible
magnitude of the interaction term (Cortina & DeShon, 1998; McClelland & Judd, 1993). However, that is not to say that small
interaction effects should be discarded. Small effects may be of great relevance nonetheless (Cortina & Landis, 2009). As
McClelland and Judd (1993) pointed out, in some cases it may not be reasonable to expect that moderators have an extremely
strong effect (e.g. coping strategies moderate the relationship between stressful life events and adverse outcomes, but never in
such a strong way that makes stressful life events have an antidepressant effect). In such cases, the researchers' expectations for
magnitude should be lower (Cortina & Landis, 2010). We believe that our study fits this category. The affective bond developed
between supervisors and subordinates is most likely to be determined by the events that take place inside the boundaries of that
relationship. External events may and in fact do, as our results suggest affect the strength of that relationship, but it may be
unreasonable to expect that one of these events by itself is so strong that is able to completely undermine the reciprocal nature of
the dyadic supervisorsubordinate relationship.

974

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

Our sample, comprised 45 Portuguese organizations, also raises some concerns about the generalizability of our findings to
other cultures. While located in Western Europe, the practices and attributes of Portuguese organizations are shared mostly with
other countries in the Latin Europe cluster, such as Italy, Spain or France (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2007). This group of
countries is viewed in some way as the cradle of Europe, and culturally is characterized by high power distance and collectivism
and low gender egalitarianism and future orientation, although there are also significant differences among these countries
(Jesuno, 2002). However, while there are culturally specific aspects, there are also other features that are culturally generalizable.
For example, Jesuno (2007) found that Portuguese middle managers view leadership prototypes in a similar fashion as all other
countries involved in the GLOBE project. The differences between Portugal and the mean of all 61 countries included in the study
were not significant for the six leadership factors (i.e., charismatic, self-protective, humane, team oriented, participative and
autonomous). The complexity of these results define Portugal's eclectic/compromising orientation (Jesuno, 2007), where specific
and universal characteristics coexist in a dynamic fashion. Another example of such complexity can be found in a recent study on
the conditions that affect the relationship between leadermember exchange (LMX) and affective commitment to the
organization. Eisenberger et al. (2010) found convergence among USA and Portuguese samples in terms of what affects the
process (i.e., same interaction effect was found), albeit with variations in strength (i.e., the size of the interaction effect varied
among the two samples). To fully address the two concerns previously raised, researchers should try to replicate our theoretical
model, particularly with samples from other cultures.
5.2. Implications for research and practice
This study opens interesting avenues for future research, beyond those already discussed in the previous section. Theoretically,
it presents an explanation for the disparity found in previous research concerning the relationship between cynicism and
performance, and provides compelling evidence for the role played by organizational cynicism in social exchange processes.
Future research should examine other processes that might also be affected by organizational cynicism, such as the relationship
between employees' adaptation styles or personality and performance (Dean et al., 1998). O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, and McDaniel's
(2012) meta-analysis provides some preliminary insight. They found, with 245 independent samples, that the dark triad personality
traits, composed of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, influence job performance, but that these relationships are
moderated by contextual factors such as authority or collectivism. It would be interesting to examine if the association of such
characteristics with performance also changes for different levels of organizational cynicism. For example, do Machiavellian individuals
perform better when they are also highly cynical toward the organization (since their values belief in the use of manipulative tactics;
cynical view of human nature; and expediency over principle are closely aligned with the organization's own values), when compared
to Machiavellian individuals who are less cynical toward the organization (since they might perceive a mismatch between their posture
and the organization's intentions)?
Additional insight on the spillover effect of organizational cynicism is also warranted. We know it affects the relationship with
a new employer following a layoff (Pugh et al., 2003), and it transfers from the organization to the social exchange with its agents,
such as supervisors. It would be interesting to examine if it carries over to other life domains beyond work. While researchers
already know that work-family conflict is negatively related to work engagement (Halbesleben, 2010), this relationship may be
aggravated in work environments where employees are highly cynical concerning the organization's intentions. When
organizational cynicism is high, employees would probably expect very little from the organization's side to help them deal with
workfamily conflict. Thus, workfamily conflict should be experienced more intensely, taking a toll on employee's work
engagement and burnout.
A third issue that deserves a closer look is the possibility for a reverse effect of cynicism. In the present study we examined
how organizational cynicism affects the social exchange relationship with supervisors. Previous research has also revealed that
employees generalize their attitudes toward supervisors to the organization as a whole (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 2002). Moreover,
supervisors' own perceptions concerning the organization also influence how subordinates perceive the organization (e.g.,
Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Therefore, it would be interesting to examine: a) to what extent cynicism toward supervisors may
contribute to the development of organizational cynicism, and; b) if supervisors' own cynicism toward the organization trickles
down and influences how employees perceive the organization's intentions.
Our results also carry implications for management. First, it draws attention to the importance of not ignoring early signs of
organizational cynicism, as it may spread to other parties, making it more difficult to act upon. Since the reasons that may lead to
cynicism are extremely diverse (e.g., previous experience, hearsay, economic context), managers should not wait to act only
when cynicism becomes contagious, generalized and visible. As the saying goes, prevention is the best cure. However, the
diversity of sources of information from which one derives his/hers organizational cynicism also deserves a closer look. For
example, employees might develop high levels of cynicism from their own personal experience, from third parties or from actions
toward other parties external to the organization. This may contribute to the difficulty in avoiding the rise of cynicism.
Nonetheless, managers should actively attempt to prevent cynicism from installing itself in their organization by making sure that
they communicate openly and honestly with their employees. While communication serves to direct work, state policies and
provide feedback (Katz & Kahn, 1966), it also signals to the employees that the organization values and cares for them (Neves &
Eisenberger, in press), contributing to the sense making process concerning the organization's intentions.
Third, it highlights the key role played by line and middle managers for organizational functioning. It is these individuals that
control the work rhythm, resolve conflicts, and make sure employees understand the mission and goals of the organization. While
this idea is not new, it has been re-visited recently, as these managers appear to be increasingly cynical and distant from their

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

975

organizations (Osterman, 2009). Finally, while it is established that organizational cynicism has pervasive effects for organizations, our
study provides preliminary evidence concerning useful strategies to deal with the increasing cynicism that characterizes contemporary
Western societies. Our results show that when PSS is high, the level of commitment to the supervisor is high, independently of whether
cynicism is high or low. Therefore, in order to deal with employee's organizational cynicism, managers should focus on training
supervisors so they can learn to recognize and act upon their employee's socioemotional needs, therefore increasing their PSS.
6. Conclusion
In closing, organizational cynicism affects employee's attitudes not only toward the organization, but also the social exchanges
with its representatives, such as supervisors. These are particularly vulnerable due to their psychological proximity to employees.
Moreover, social exchanges with supervisors appear to be one of the key mechanisms through which organizational cynicism
indirectly influences employees' behaviors, in particular extra-role performance. Nonetheless, supervisors themselves may
actively inhibit this spillover effect by demonstrating high levels of support, thus helping to protect the organization from the
threats posed by cynicism. Organizational cynicism is a problem that crosses most contemporary organizations and has the power
to spillover to other parties. Nonetheless, as how our study reveals, there are strategies available for organizations to diminish its
harmful impact.
References
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework. Human Relations, 49, 13951418.
Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449460.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 4587.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274289.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 464482.
Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. C. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16,
327348.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Justice, cynicism, and commitment: A study of important change variables. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 43, 303326.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Jones, L. E. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 549562.
Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management
Review, 16, 199208.
Cheng, B. S., Jiang, D. Y., & Riley, J. H. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: Proximal
hypothesis or global hypothesis? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 313334.
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, M. C., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee
cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 463484.
Cortina, J. M., & DeShon, R. P. (1998). Determining relative importance of predictors with the observational data. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 798804.
Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big story and when large effect sizes don't. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and
methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences. New York: Routledge.
Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2010). The Earth is not round (p = .00). Organizational Research Methods, 14, 332349.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., III (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 6776.
Davis, W. D., & Gardner, W. L. (2004). Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leadermember exchange perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 439465.
Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341352.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 4251.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Steiger-Mueller, M., & Gonzalez-Morales, G. (2010). Leadermember exchange and
affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 10851103.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational
support and employee retention. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565573.
Erickson, R. A., & Roloff, M. E. (2008). Reducing attrition after downsizing: Analyzing the effects of organizational support, supervisor support, and gender on
organizational commitment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15, 3555.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161178.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102117). New York: Psychology Press.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 10101023.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jesuno, J. C. (2002). Latin Europe cluster: From South to North. Journal of World Business, 37, 8189.
Jesuno, J. C. (2007). Leadership and culture in Portugal. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book
of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, J. L., & 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, 627647.
Judge, T. A., & Illies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661673.

976

P. Neves / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 965976

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical American. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kim, T., Bateman, T. S., Gilbreath, B., & Andersson, L. M. (2009). Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model. Human Relations,
62, 14351458.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the field at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292310.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 151173.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99128.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397422.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709734.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulleting, 114, 376390.
Morgan-Lopez, A. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2006). Demonstration and evaluation of a method for assessing mediated moderation. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 7787.
Muse, L. A., & Pichler, S. (2011). A comparison of types of support for lower-skill workers: Evidence for the importance of family supportive supervisors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 653666.
Neves, P., & Caetano, A. (2006). Social exchange processes in organizational change: The roles of trust and control. Journal of Change Management, 6, 351364.
Neves, P., & Eisenberger, R. (in press). Management communication and employee performance: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Human
Performance.
OBoyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work outcomes: A social exchange perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557579.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775803.
Osterman, P. (2009). The truth about middle managers: Who they are, how they work, why they matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pazy, A., & Ganzach, Y. (2009). Pay contingency and the effects of perceived organizational and supervisor support on performance and commitment. Journal of
Management, 35, 10071025.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
& Computers, 36, 717731.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42, 185227.
Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims' trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 76, 201212.
Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Pulkkinen, L. (2008). Workfamily conflict and psychological well-being: Stability and cross-lagged relations within oneand six-year follow-ups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 3751.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465476.
Roth, P. L., & BeVier, C. A. (1998). Response rates in HRM/OB survey research: Norms and correlates, 19901994. Journal of Management, 24, 97117.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). The MBI-general survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach burnout
inventory. Manual (pp. 1926). (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisor feel supported: Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational
support, and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689695.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221232.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 251270.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 4771.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational
citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517529.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization
Management, 25, 132153.
Wilkerson, J. M., Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2008). A test of coworkers' influence on organizational cynicism, badmouthing, and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 22732292.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal
of Management, 17, 601617.