Cynicism

Book Description The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior aims to gather all the micro and meso level topics about the dark side of organizations that may guide management practitioners, researchers, and students. The history before the modern human civilization is full of multiple types of conflicts, wars, struggles and violence. Modernization project has constructed a desired reality of human being and has somehow concealed the dark side of human interactions. Through this outlook, this book explores the realities of the dark side of organizations and how these realities may have the potential to change previous assumptions about business life. The field of Organizational Behavior is dominated by the positive aspects of the business life, but conflict, war, struggle, and violence have always been a part of history. It is not possible to isolate organizational participants from negative emotions like hostility, dislike, hate, jealousy, rage, and revenge. A manager may devote most of their time to cope with conflicts, deviant behaviors, ambitious individuals, gossips, and dysfunctional rivalry among employees. It is evident that negative events and interactions among employees cost more time and energy for a manager than the positive side of organizational life. Therefore, exploring the realities of the dark side of organizations may have the potential to change previous assumptions about business life. This book will be of interest to researchers, academics, practitioners, and advanced students in the fields of organizational studies and behavior, human resource management, employment relations, and organizational psychology. Table of Contents Introduction 1. Negative emotions at work Özlem Öğütveren Gönül and Zühal Şenyuva 2. Who-dislikes-whom networks: bases and consequences of negative ties Meral Kızrak, Cenk Sözen and Ali Gürsoy 3. Organizational cynicism Cem Şen and H. Nejat Basım 4. Discrimination at work Esra Aydın and H. Nejat Basım 5.Toxic leadership Korhan ARUN 6.Dark side of organizational citizenship behaviors Fatih Çetin 7. Negative aspects of organizational power Deniz Dirik 8. Deviant behaviors at work Demet Varoğlu and Aysun Doğan Editor(s) Biography H. Cenk Sözen, Ph.D., is Professor of Management within the Department of Management at Başkent University in Ankara, Turkey. H. Nejat Basım, Ph.D., is Professor of Management within the Department of Management at Başkent University in Ankara, Turkey. View publication stats 54 3. Organizational cynicism Cem Şen and H. Nejat Basım https//orchid.org/0000-0002-7300-0170. https//orchid.org/0000-0002-2605-9962 Abstract In the organizational behavior literature, organizational cynicism, because of its detrimental effects, is generally considered to be conceptually distinct from the other organizational outcomes. In recent years, organizational cynicism, for its negative effects on human resources and capital, has become very popular. Despite such popularity, there is still a lack of a more exclusive understanding of cynicism. Since organizations expect and demand more and more from their employees and really provide little in return, employee cynicism seems inevitable. This chapter has reviewed the literature on cynicism to define and classify cynicism, summarize its theoretical foundations, antecedents, and consequences, and advise ways to alleviate its effects for the sake of personal and organizational efficiency and performance. The main focus is to understand why employees turn cynical toward their organizations, and what triggers their cynical attitudes and behaviors, and what the consequences of their cynicism are. “Scratch the surface of most cynics and you find a frustrated idealist — someone who made the mistake of converting his ideals into expectations.” Peter Senge Introduction As posited by the resource-based approach and agreed by most scholars, human capital is universally the most important and difficult resource to imitate among all other resources (Barney, 1991; Wright, Dunford and Snell, 2001; Luthans and Youssef, 2004). It may be argued that employees play a prominent role in organizational success, high efficiency and performance criteria or the other way around. In this context, the most important requirement of ensuring the survival of organizations is to protect and cherish that key actor. Organizational cynicism has in recent years become popular and been increasingly studied for its negative effects on human resources and capital (Andersson, 1996; Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Dean, Brandes and Dharwadkar, 1998; James and Shaw, 2016; Kanter and Mirvis, 1989). Despite such popularity, there is still a lack of a more exclusive understanding of cynicism. Since organizations expect and demand more and more from their employees and really provide little in return, employee cynicism seems inevitable. Most recent theories and studies on organizational cynicism have proposed models of cynicism that suggest analyzing antecedents and consequences of cynicism (Thompson et al., 2000). 55 As modern workplace continues to evolve at an amazing pace, we have witnessed a noteworthy increase in mergers and acquisitions alongside the de-layering and downsizing of many wellknown organizations, which eventually causes tragic impact on employees in terms of job losses (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006). The accelerating development and proliferation of new technologies at modern workplaces lead to a more flexible use of labor force (Kompier, 2005). Because of these developments, many employees show negative attitudes toward their organizations (Bedeian, 2007; Brandes, Dharwadkar and Dean, 1999; Brandes Das and Hadeni, 2006; Dean et al., 1998; James, 2005; Wilkerson, Evans and Davis, 2008). The challenge facing organizations is how to plan for better transformation, make changes in business strategies, organizational structures and design, and use technologies that can sustain and advance organizations in this challenging environment. Under these circumstances, it is paramount that organizations carefully assess employees’ situation and prepare for coping with potential counterproductive behaviors. The consequences of cynicism should not be underestimated (James and Shaw, 2016). In other words, cynicism does matter in shaping the success or failure of organizational outcomes. Otherwise, organizations will face inevitable problems caused by unhappy employees, e.g. rise in employee cynicism and mistrust that may produce detrimental effects to organizations. Consequently, it is clear that more studies are needed to further explore this issue. Cynicism and its antecedents The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) defines cynic a “one who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasms; a sneering fault-finder”. It is widely believed that the term itself may date back to the Greek word for dog (kyon) and the first Cynic was Antisthenes, followed by his student Diogenes of Sinope, who became famous for carrying a lantern in daylight to help him find one honest man as an indication of rejecting societal standards and expressing contempt for institutions like religion and government (Dean et al., 1998). Emerging as an important organizational behavior outcome variable, cynicism may be defined as the state where individuals only observe their own interests, and therefore, are adversaries to other individuals (James, 2005). By another definition, cynicism is portrayed by negative attitudes of frustration, disappointment and humiliation toward and distrust of an individual, manager, organization and other employees at work (Andersson, 1996; Dean et al., 1998; Prajogoa, Wijaya, and Kusumawatic, 2020). Cynicism, a detrimental employee attitude for organizations, is recognized as one of the main reasons for reduced efficiency and effectiveness (Bommer et al., 2005). In other words, cynicism emerges as an important threat to the success of organizations (Şen 56 and Basım, 2018). Organizational cynicism is an attitude characterized by unfavorable beliefs about the organization, a negative emotional reaction, and behavior (Dean et al., 1998; Bedeian, 2007). Wilkerson (2002) defines organizational cynicism as a “negative attitude toward the organization in general, and toward its procedures, processes, and management that is based on a conviction that these elements generally work against the employee’s best interests”. Earlier studies established that negative attitudes, of a certain extent and strength and involving cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspects, were directed towards the organization (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Dean et al., 1998). As to the cognitive dimension of organizational cynicism, employees believe that their organizations are betraying them through lack of justice, fairness, honesty, sincerity and integrity (Özgener, Öğüt and Kaplan, 2008). In other words, employees think that their organization does not care about them, or appreciate their contribution (Margelytė-Pleskienė and Vveinhardt, 2018). In addition, cynic employees usually believe that their organization’s choices are mainly based on self-interest and the official rationale for organizational decisions is unacceptable (Dean et al., 1998). The affective dimension includes strong emotional reactions against the organization such as contempt, disrespect, sadness, distress, anger, disgust, boredom, embarrassment (Brandes et al., 1999), irritation, tension and anxiety, dissatisfaction, pain or confusion (Margelytė-Pleskienė and Vveinhardt, 2018). Hence, cynicism is associated with a variety of negative emotions (Dean et al., 1998) and such emotional reactions and feelings reduce motivation and commitment to the organization. The behavioral dimension includes derisive talk of the organization such as harsh criticism, sarcastic humor and interpretations, clear expressions about the lack of integrity, cordiality, and pessimistic estimates and predictions of the organization’s activities and future plans (Abraham, 2000; Margelytė-Pleskienė and Vveinhardt, 2018). For example, the only reason the organization is involved in environmental matters is interpreted as generating favorable public relations, and a quality initiative taken for the sake of employees will be deserted once it begins to be costly (Brandes et al., 2006). The behavioral dimension may be shown by specific types of nonverbal behaviors such as meaningful looks and rolling eyes, as well as grinning and contempt (Dean et al., 1998). As mentioned above, cynicism consists of cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions. All these dimensions tend to emerge and be shaped by different factors. Therefore, it is not logical to view cynicism as just only a personality trait, but rather as a state, which implies both that it stems from certain organizational practices and that it is likely to change somewhat over time as individuals’ experience evolves (Dean et al., 1998). Cynicism may emerge due to individual and organizational reasons. Individual reasons are mostly associated with demographic factors such as: 57 Age, gender, marital status and level of education (Chiaburu et al., 2013; Mirvis and Kanter, 1991),  Employment duration (James, 2005).  Organizational reasons include many cognitive, emotional and behavioral factors such as: Violations of the psychological contract believed to exist between the employee and the organization (Abraham, 2000),  Perception of low organizational support (Fleming, 2005),  Organizational injustice (Özgener et al., 2008),  Lack of trust (Aslan and Eren, 2014),  Lack of alignment between policies and practices, unethical behavior (Dean et al., 1998),  Organizational social responsibility and unfair compensation policies classical/oldfashioned business methods and values, excessive working hours, organizational policies including mobbing and mismanagement (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006),  Role conflict and role ambiguity (Andersson, 1996),  Poor communication, ineffective leadership and lack of respect for employees (Cole et al., 2006),  Organizational downsizing, restructuring and recruitment of employees (Abraham, 2000; Brown and Cregan, 2008),  Low organizational performance (Andersson and Bateman, 1997),  Management ineptitude in executing change and lack of staff involvement (Andersson, 1996; Ferres and Connel, 2004).   It is argued that cynical attitudes and behaviors are basically the consequence of unappreciated performance, and lead to negative social and economic effects (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Byrne and Hochwarter, 2008). In other words, cynicism is a reaction to stress factors in organizations. This conclusion is in line with Karl Marx who once said “Cynics are made, not born”. Earlier research revealed that cynicism might be experienced both in public and private organizations. The main reason for cynicism in public organizations is their structural bureaucratic characteristics (Albrecht, 2002). The basis of cynicism in the private sector is that highly ethical employees at all levels of the hierarchy make efforts to contribute to their organizations, but do not receive much in return, which causes hostility and insecurity (Kanter and Mirvis, 1989; James, 2005). Andersson (1996) reported that modern organizations provided enough cause for cynicism among employees, particularly as economic and extrinsic business rewards often superseded employee happiness and well-being. 58 Employees with high levels of cynicism display significantly reduced organizational citizenship behaviors (Andersson, 1996), decrease in organizational commitment, increase in intention to leave work (Abraham, 2000), decrease in perceived organizational support (Byrne and Hochwarter, 2008), increase in insecurity (Eaton, 2000), decrease in creativity and productivity (Kanter and Mirvis, 1989) and decrease in morale (Premeaux and Mondy, 1986). Hence, perceived cynicism may have serious organizational implications (James and Shaw, 2016). Increasing employee cynicism is not surprising because while employees seek empowerment, equity and justice, and evolutionary and rational change, they are increasingly expected to comply with more rules and procedures, and be firmly controlled, accept differences, and be exposed to irrational change that implies more work for the same rewards (Herriot, 2001). Theoretical foundations of organizational cynicism The theoretical foundations of organizational cynicism stem from the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), attribution theory (Kelley, 1972), attitude theory (Triandis, 1971), social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), affective events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) and social motivation theory (Weiner, 1976). Expectancy theory According to the expectancy theory, which is related to the individual expectations of the employee, behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives, and an employee’s success is based on his/her character, capability, knowledge, expertise, experience and abilities (Vroom, 1964). An employee is usually concerned that even if s/he demonstrates the attitudes and behaviors expected of him/her, s/he will not get the expected returns. These expectations, by taking environmental factors into account, are used to elucidate the progress and quality of working cynicism (James, 2005). Employees who believe that their expectations are not met may show a cynical attitude towards their organizations (Brandes and Das, 2006). The relationship between the expectancy theory and organizational cynicism shows itself in prioritizing self-interest (Barefoot et al., 1989; Brandes, 1997; Mirvis and Kanter, 1991) and, believing that the effort for organizational change will fail in the future (Brandes, 1997; Brandes, Dharwadkar and Dean, 1999). Attribution theory The attribution theory posits that behavior stems from the characteristics of an individual or of the environmental conditions of the individual (Kelley, 1972). Weiner’s (1986) social motivation 59 theory attempts to explain the nexus between the attribution theory and organizational cynicism, arguing that that people make causal references to the perception of the incident after a negative event. For example, an employee who is not rewarded even s/he works hard, and finds out someone who works less is rewarded instead, attributes this situation to the flattering ability of the rewarded employee (Weiner, 1986). Attitude theory The attitude theory holds that an attitude may be described as a person’s tendency to appraise an object as favorable/positive or unfavorable/negative, and basically explains how attitudes provide simple methods for solving problems, how to organize memory for incidents and maintain self-esteem (Triandis, 1971). As mentioned above, organizational cynicism is a negative attitude of a certain extent and strength and involving cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspects. In this context, attempt is made to explain the relationship between attitude theory and cynicism in terms of these three dimensions (affective, cognitive and behavioral). Social exchange theory The social exchange theory is defined as social interactions and interpersonal relations and assumes that human beings communicate with other people to survive and meet their needs, and engage in social exchange only to maximize outcomes (Blau, 1964). In other words, individuals engage in relationships in which not only economic but also more prevalent social necessities are pertinent. These obligations are traded overtime in cycles of mutuality with individuals being most satisfied under conditions of equivalent exchange (Gouldner, 1960). In this context, if employees feel that their organization treats them fairly and honestly, they feel obliged to integrate themselves with their organization, work harder to achieve its goals and avoid counter-productive behaviors (Gouldner, 1960; Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). However, the break of certain promises made to employees or failure to meet general expectations leads to cynicism (James, 2005). Theory of affective (emotional) events According to the theory of affective (emotional) events, which investigates the effects of emotions on human behavior, employee behavior derives from personal traits and emotional events experienced by individuals (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). Hence, the theory of emotional events is defined as a theoretical discussion of the formation, causes and results of emotional experience at work. Therefore, in the perception of the organization as fair or unfair, feeling job satisfaction or showing cynical behaviors may have been caused by the emotional events experienced in that day or before (Brown and Cregan, 2008). 60 Social motivation theory The social motivation theory is interested in how individuals evaluate events and how this relates to their consideration and behavior (Weiner, 1976). The theory posits that the first thing is to investigate the results of any incident, then evaluate causal links. Such evaluation will help identify who or what is responsible for the occurrence, anticipate similar incidents, and develop feasible solutions. Expectations may cause certain emotions such as anger and sympathy which may affect the subsequent behaviors of individuals (Weiner, 1986). The social motivation theory advocates investigating how organizational events are interpreted by employees and how such interpretations influence organizational cynicism (Eaton, 2000). Even there are numerous theories that build the theoretical foundations of organizational cynicism, we cannot simply categorize employees into cynics and non-cynics. Implied though not plainly expressed in this discussion is the assumption that organizational cynicism is a continuous process; the world is not divided into simply cynics and non-cynics, and people have broadly varying levels of cynicism (Dean et al., 1998). It may be interpreted that cynicism is the root of negative attitude and important in shaping how employees perceive, and influences how employees execute their daily routines and reduces their motivation to remain committed, faithful and being cordial with the organization (Yasin and Khalid, 2015). Consequences of organizational cynicism In organizational life, it is possible to examine the consequences of cynicism in two parts: individual and organizational consequences. In terms of individual consequences, it may be seen as behavioral and psychologicalphysiological disorders; in terms of organizational consequences, cynicism has significant effects on organizations that reduce their performance, efficiency and effectiveness, leading to substantial material and moral losses (Brandes, 1997). Organizational cynicism is associated with unhealthy behaviors such as alcohol consumption, smoking and gaining excessive weight, and the job dissatisfaction which takes place along with organizational cynicism may result in negative behaviors such as drop-outs, low performance, 61 depersonalization and inefficiency at work (Abraham, 2000; Brandes et al., 1999; Daviglus, Costa and Stamler, 1991; Dean et al., 1998; Houston and Vavak, 1991; Maslach, 1982). Psychological-physiological consequences of organizational cynicism manifest themselves as emotional exhaustion, which is basically the depletion of energy or affective resources and characterized by physical and emotional collapse (Maslach, 1982). As a result of cynicism, individuals are more prone to anger, resentment, feelings of persecution, tension, anxiety and defensive behavior (Brandes, 1997). It is possible to see the consequences of organizational cynicism which cover a wide range of the following (Abraham, 2000; Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Bommer and et al., 2005; Eaton, 2000; Fleming, 2005; Goldner et al., 1977; James, 2005; Reichers, Wanous and Austin, 1997; Wanous, Reichers and Austin, 1994):                   Dissatisfaction, Sabotage, Theft, Fraud, Reduced commitment to the organization, Alienation, Increase in turnover rates, Decrease in organizational performance, Disobedience, Increase in suspicion and distrust, Absenteeism, Emotional burnout, Decrease in motivation, Increase in organization humiliation, Decrease in self-confidence of employees, Stress, Reluctance in effort for organizational change, Feeling self-ignorant. To comprehend the nexus between organizational cynicism and the outcomes which it causes, we are going to analyze the relationship between cynicism and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, burnout, trust, alienation, turnover intention and organizational justice one by one. 62 Organizational cynicism and job satisfaction Robbins and Judge (2012) describe job satisfaction as the employee’s positive emotion and attitudinal orientation towards a job as a result of his/her assessment of job characteristics. By another definition, it is recognized as individual’s sense of satisfaction that results from his/her job experience and the positive attitude that a person has towards his/her job or a fit between a person and an organization (Ugboro and Obeng, 2000). Work, which has an important place in human life, is considered a means of achieving personal goals; and job satisfaction may be seen as one’s general attitude towards his/her work, and an employee with high job satisfaction has a positive attitude to his/her job, while an employee with dissatisfaction may have a negative attitude (Sığrı and Basım, 2006). In this context, job satisfaction may also be considered as person-environment fit. We may list the factors affecting job satisfaction as organizational factors (pay, promotion opportunities, the nature and quality of work, policies and procedures, organization and working conditions), group factors (colleagues’ and managers’ attitudes and behavior patterns), individual factors (a person’s status and needs and expectations of the position), cultural factors (beliefs, values and attitudes of individuals) and environmental factors (all economic, social and governmental factors affecting the individual) (Örücü, Yumuşak and Bozkır, 2006). Almost all of the current attention in job satisfaction concerns its impact on absenteeism and turnover, organizational commitment, stress and inefficiency (Robbins and Judge, 2012). High levels of organizational cynicism of employees cause job dissatisfaction. In other words, as the level of organizational cynicism increases, the level of job satisfaction decreases (Abraham, 2000; Eaton, 2000; James, 2005; Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 1994). Organizational cynicism and organizational commitment Allen and Meyer (1990) define organizational commitment as the psychological connection of the employee to the organization. By another definition, it is the degree of an employee’s connection to the organization and its purposes, and identifies him/herself with these purposes and willingness to continue as that organization’s member (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Robbins and Judge, 2012). Basically it is a concept that seeks to capture the nature of the attachments formed by employees to their employing organizations (Shahnawaz and Jafri, 2009). Organizational commitment has three different dimensions, namely affective commitment, which expresses the employees’ emotional attachment to the organizations and their belief in these organizations’ values; continuance commitment/obligatory commitment, which means being aware of the costs associated with leaving the organization; and normative/moral commitment, which makes the employees perceive the commitment to the organization because of moral or ethical values as a duty, and think that commitment to the organization is a true behavior (Allen and Meyer, 1990). According to Wasti (1999), employees who have strong affective commitment do not leave because they want to, those with strong obligatory commitment remain because they need to, and those 63 with strong moral commitment do not leave because they feel they ought not to. Much of the present interest in organizational commitment concerns its impact on absenteeism and turnover, stress and inefficiency (Robbins and Judge, 2012). As the level of organizational cynicism increases, the level of organizational commitment decreases (Abraham, 2000; Brandes et al., 1999; Eaton, 2000; James, 2005; Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behavior Organ (1988) defines Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) as discretionary or optional behaviors in which employees engage above and beyond their formal job descriptions to support the effective and proper functioning of the organization. These behaviors are neither required by an employee’s role nor recognized by the organization’s formal reward system (Organ, 1990). The main nuance here is that OCB varies by personal preferences. Clearly there is no demand by the management for employees to display OCBs, and naturally there is no punishment or sanction for omission thereof. Organ (1997: 91) later changed the definition of OCBs as “behaviors that contribute to the preservation and improvement of the social and psychological context that promotes job performance”. One of the most interesting associations of organizational cynicism is with organizational citizenship (Abraham, 2000; Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). This is because some studies find that there is a significant negative relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship (Brandes, 1997; James, 2005; Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch, 1994), whereas some studies find no significant relationship (James, 2005). Organizational cynicism and burnout Burnout is simply a work-related stress syndrome (Chemiss, 1980). It may be defined as a process involving symptoms that occur in individuals who are in an intense relationship with people, and emerging in three dimensions namely emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and a decrease in personal accomplishment (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). The concept of cynicism is similar to the depersonalization dimension of the concept of burnout. It may be portrayed by a state of extreme physical or mental fatigue (exhaustion), a cynical attitude towards work and a tendency to evaluate oneself negatively with regard to work effectiveness (Maslach, Jackson and Leiter, 1996). Burnout has some negative effects on employees such as impaired attention, unwillingness to go to work and absence from work, impatience, intolerance, self-suspicion, incidental dementia, depression, anxiety, energy depletion, sleep disorders and poor work capacity (Hallsten, Voss, Stark and Josephson, 2011; Schaufeli and Greenglass, 2001; Maslach and Leiter, 1997; Wright and Bonett, 1997; Mitchell and Hastings, 2001). Cynicism is positively associated with stress, confirming that cynicism increases with stress levels and eventually causes burnout (Maslach et al., 1996; James, 2005). 64 Organizational cynicism and trust Trust is defined as the “inclination of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action crucial to the trusting party, regardless of the capacity to monitor or control the other party” (Mayer et al., 1995: 712). By another definition, trust is the perceptions of an employee about the support provided by the organization, and the belief that the leader will be honest and stand behind his/her word. (Mishra and Morrissey, 1990). Trust may be seen as the key to the nexus between behavioral integrity and organizational outcomes. It is expected to mediate the relationship between behavioral integrity and organizational cynicism. When organizational executives and managers do not keep promises, employees are less likely to trust them, and eventually this makes them cynical about their organization. In other words, the behavior of individuals with cynic attitudes in organizations mostly results from mistrust of the betrayed individuals (Brandes, 1997). The high level of organizational cynicism of employees causes mistrust in the organization. In other words, as the level of organizational cynicism increases, organizational trust decreases (Abraham, 2000; Eaton, 2000; Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Reichers et al., 1997; Wanous et al., 1994). Organizational cynicism and alienation Kanungo (1982) defines alienation as a generalized state of psychological disconnection from work. It reflects an unenthusiastic attitude of an employee towards his/her work, related tasks or settings, in other words it is disengagement of an employee from his/her work (Ankony, 1999; Hirschfeld, Feild and Bedeian, 2000). According to Nair and Vohra (2009), alienation is estrangement or disconnect from work, context or self. When employees become burdened with alienating feelings, they are no longer able to comply with work norms and feel dismay over their career (Aiken and Hage, 1966; Kökalan and Anaş, 2016; Li and Chen, 2018). Organizational efficiency and performance of an employee is negatively affected by feelings of alienation (Singh and Randhawa, 2018). As to the relationship between organizational cynicism and alienation, organizational cynicism increases as does alienation (Abraham, 2000; James, 2005; Li and Chen, 2018; Singh and Randhawa, 2018). Organizational cynicism and turnover intention Tett and Meyer (1993) describe turnover intention as the desire of an individual to leave an organization. It has three dimensions: 1) attitudinal: thinking of quitting, 2) decisional: intention to leave, 3) behavioral: searching for a new job (Sager, Griffeth and Hom, 1998). Employees who are not happy with their jobs may confront various stresses due to misalignment with their and organizations’ expectations. And then they can decide to seek alternatives in other organizations 65 and quit their organizations in the near future (Krueger and Rouse, 1998; Schyns, Torka and Gössling, 2007). Employees’ turnover intentions certainly have adverse spill-over effects on an organization such as low performance and productivity, low morale, significant financial consequences like cost of selection and hiring new employees (Singh and Randhawa, 2018). As to negative organizational outcomes, organizational cynicism is one of the most obvious contributors to turnover (Tett and Meyer, 1993). In other words, as organizational cynicism increases, turnover intention increases as well. Organizational cynicism and organizational justice Organizational justice may be defined as the employees’ perception of fairness in organizational systems like performance management or career development systems (Gupta and Kumar, 2012). Greenberg and Colquitt (2013) define organizational justice as the extent to which employee perceives fairness in the workplace procedures, interactions and outcomes. It has four dimensions: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice. While distributive justice reflects employees’ perception of fairness of organizational outcomes; procedural justice refers to the employees’ perception of impartiality of decision-making processes or policies (Colquitt et al., 2001). Interpersonal justice reflects the perception of an employee of being treated with respect and dignity by the management where informational justice refers to the perception of the employees that their supervisors provide adequate and accurate information to them (Gupta and Kumar, 2012). Perception of organizational justice in all those four dimensions contributes to employees’ general perceptions of organizational justice in their organizations and compels them to find a way to give back to their organization (Bizri, & Hamieh, 2019), either in a positive or negative attitude. As the level of organizational justice increases, organizational cynicism decreases (Bommer et al., 2005; Özgener et al., 2008; Wilkerson et al., 2008). Possible remedies for cynicism The business landscape and life have widely changed due to globalization, international competition, workforce diversity, changing nature of business and technological developments; and today everything is totally different from what it was yesterday. As may be drawn from the discussion so far, the level of cynicism varies by organization. The differences may be simple or complex, explicit or implicit. Whatever the differences are, one thing is certain: There is no “right” formula for curing cynicism at once. But an awareness of its existence is essential to meet the challenges posed by cynicism. 66 To ensure an efficient and effective working environment in organizations, it is important to introduce regulations and take certain measures, as follows, to counter cynical attitudes (Görmen, 2017; Muehrcke, 1991; Naus, van Iterson and Roe, 2007; Qian and Daniels, 2008):          Realize that the most prominent asset in organizations is employees, Support employees in financial, social and cultural terms, Reduce the stress level of employees, Improve physical working conditions and technological structure, Increase organizational flexibility, Communicate and inform employees in advance about organizational changes, Allow employees to participate in management, Enable employees to focus on achievable goals, Create fair, equal, open wage and reward systems. If we really want to reach organizational goals with no decrease in personal and organizational efficiency and performance in this challenging world, we should retain the best employees we have and try to find the balance with their and organizations’ expectations. Concluding remarks This chapter has reviewed the literature on cynicism to define and classify cynicism, summarize its theoretical foundations, antecedents and consequences, and advise ways to alleviate its effects for the sake of personal and organizational efficiency and performance. The main focus is to understand why employees turn cynical toward their organizations, and what triggers their cynical attitudes and behaviors, and what the consequences of their cynicism are. Since cynicism may emerge due to individual and organizational reasons, we should first accurately define the problem and reasons and then suggest right remedies and solutions before they emerge. The challenge facing organizations is how to plan for better transformation, make changes in business strategies, organizational structures and design, and use technologies that can sustain and advance organizations in this challenging environment. Since organizations expect and demand more and more from their employees and really provide little in return, employee cynicism seems inevitable. Most recent theories and studies on organizational cynicism have proposed models of cynicism that suggest analyzing antecedents and consequences of cynicism. The theoretical foundations of organizational cynicism stem from the expectancy theory, attribution theory, attitude theory, social exchange theory, affective events theory and social motivation theory. 67 As discussed above cynicism may emerge due to individual and organizational reasons. Individual reasons are mostly associated with demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, level of education and employment duration. Organizational reasons include many cognitive, emotional and behavioral factors such as violations of the psychological contract believed to exist between the employee and the organization, perception of low organizational support, organizational injustice, lack of trust, lack of alignment between policies and practices, unethical behavior, organizational social responsibility and unfair compensation policies, classical/old-fashioned business methods and values, excessive working hours, organizational policies including mobbing and mismanagement, role conflict and role ambiguity, poor communication, ineffective leadership and lack of respect for employees, organizational downsizing, restructuring and recruitment of employees, low organizational performance, management ineptitude in executing change and lack of staff involvement. There are important consequences of cynicism. In terms of individual consequences, it may be seen as behavioral and psychological-physiological disorders; in terms of organizational consequences, cynicism has significant effects on organizations that reduce their performance, effectiveness and efficiency, leading to substantial material and moral losses. It is possible to see the consequences of organizational cynicism which cover a wide range of dissatisfaction, sabotage, theft, fraud, reduced commitment to the organization, alienation, increase in turnover rates, decrease in organizational performance, disobedience, increase in suspicion and distrust, absenteeism, emotional burnout, decrease of motivation, increase in organization humiliation, decrease in self-confidence of employees, stress, reluctance in effort for organizational change, and feeling self-ignorant. To ensure an efficient and effective working environment in organizations, it is important to introduce regulations and take certain measures, as follows, to counter cynical attitudes such as to realize that the most prominent asset in organizations is employees, support employees in financial, social and cultural terms, reduce the stress level of employees, improve physical working conditions and technological structure, increase organizational flexibility, communicate and inform employees in advance about organizational changes, allow employees to participate in management, enable employees to focus on achievable goals, create fair, equal, open wage and reward systems. Since organizational cynicism has many negative effects on important organizational outcomes, it is important to provide a thorough evaluation of the links between organizational 68 outcomes and organizational cynicism and the impact on employees and organizations. Thereby, it will be easier to reach organizational goals with no decrease in personal and organizational efficiency and performance. References Abraham, Rebecca. 2000. “Organizational Cynicism: Bases and Consequences”. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, No. 126(3): 269-292. Aiken, Michael, and Hage, Jerald. 1966. “Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis”. American Sociological Review, No. 31(4): 497-507. Albrecht, Simon L. 2002. “Perceptions of Integrity, Competence and Trust in Senior Management as Determinants of Cynicism toward Change Public Administration and Management”. An Interactive Journal, No. 7(4): 320-343. Allen, Natalie J., and Meyer, John P. 1990. “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization”. Journal of Occupational Psychology, No. 63: 1-18. Andersson, Lynne M. 1996. “Employee Cynicism: An Examination Using a Contract Violation Framework”. Human Relations, No. 49: 1395-1417. Andersson, Lynne M., and Bateman, Thomas S. 1997. “Cynicism in the Workplace: Some Causes and Effects”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 18(5): 449-469. Ankony, Robert C. 1999. “The Impact of Perceived Alienation on Police Officers’ Sense of Mastery and Subsequent Motivation for Proactive Enforcement”. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, No. 22(2): 120-32. Aslan, Şebnem, and Eren, Şerife. 2014. “The Effect of Cynicism and the Organizational Cynicism on Alienation”. The Clute Institute International Academic Conference, 268-276, Germany. Barney, Jay. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”. Journal of Management, No. 17(1): 99-120. Bizri, Rima, M., and Hamieh, Farida. 2019. “Beyond the “Give Back” Equation: The Influence of Perceived Organizational Justice and Support on Extra-role Behaviors”. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, No. 28(3): 699-718. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-072019-1838 Bedeian, Arthur G. 2007. “Even if the Tower is Ivory, it isn’t White: Understanding the Consequences of Faculty Cynicism”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, No. 6(1): 9-32. Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. Bommer, William H., Rich, Gregory A., and Rubin, Robert S. 2005. “Changing Attitudes about Change: Longitudinal Effects of Transformational Leader Behavior on Employee Cynicism about Organizational Change”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 26 (7): 733-753. Brandes, Pamela M. 1997. “Organizational Cynicism: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences”. Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati. Brandes, Pamela, Das, Diya, and Hadeni, Michael. 2006. “Organizational Cynicism: A field Examination Using Global and Local Social Exchange Relationships and Workplace Outcomes”. In Sharing Network Leadership, edited by George B. Grean and Joni A. Grean, 191-224, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Brandes, Pamela, Dharwadkar, Ravi, and Dean, James W. 1999. “Does Organizational Cynicism Matter? Employee and Supervisor Perspectives on Work Outcomes”. Eastern Academy of Management Proceedings, 150-153. Brown, Michelle, and Cregan, Christina. 2008. “Organizational Change Cynicism: The Role of 69 Employee Involvement”. Human Resource Management, No. 47 (4): 667-686. Byrne, Zinta S., and Hochwarter, Wayne A. 2008. “Perceived Organizational Support and Performance: Relationships across Levels of Organizational Cynicism”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, No. 23: 54-72. Cartwright, Susan, and Holmes Nicola. 2006. “The Meaning of Work: The Challenge of Regaining Employee Engagement and Reducing Cynicism”. Human Resource Management Review, No. 16: 199-208. Chiaburu, Dan S., Peng, Ann C., Oh, In-Sue, Banks, George C., Lomeli, Laura C. 2013. “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Organizational Cynicism: A MetaAnalysis”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, No. (83)2: 181-197. Chemiss, Cary. 1980. Staff Burnout, Job Stress in the Human Service. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE Publications. Cole, Michael S., Bruch, Heike, and Vogel, Bernd. 2006. “Emotion as Mediators of the Relations between Perceived Supervisor Support and Psychological Hardiness on Employee Cynicism”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 27: 463-484. Colquitt, Jason A., Conlon, Donald E., Wesson, Michael J., Porter, Christopher O.L.H., and Ng, K.Yee. 2001. “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research”. Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 86(3): 425-445. Dean, James W., Brandes, Pamela, and Dharwadkar, Ravi. 1998. “Organizational Cynicism”. Academy of Management Review, No. 23(2): 341-352. Eaton, Judy A. 2000. “A Social Motivation Approach to Organizational Cynicism”. Ph.D. diss., Graduate Program in Psychology, York University, Toronto. Ferres, Natalie, and Connel, Julia. 2004. “Emotional Intelligence in Leaders: An Antidote for Cynicism towards Change”. Strategic Change, No. 13(2): 61-71. Fleming, Peter. 2005. “Workers Playtime? Boundaries and Cynicism in a Culture of Fun Program”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, No. 41(1): 285-303. Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement”. American Sociological Review, No. 25: 161-78. Goldner, Fred H., Ritti, Richard R., and Ference, Thomas P. 1977. “The Production of Cynical Knowledge in Organizations”. American Sociological Review, No. 42(4): 539-551. Görmen, Murat. 2017. “Örgüt Kültürünün Örgütsel Sinizm Tutumları Üzerine Etkisi”. Bartın Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, No. 8(15): 363-387. Greenberg, Jerald, and Colquitt, Jason A., eds. 2013. Handbook of Organizational Justice. London: Psychology Press. Gupta, Vishal, and Kumar, Sushil. 2012. “Impact of Performance Appraisal Justice on Employee Engagement: A Study of Indian Professionals”. Employee Relations, No. 35(1): 61-78. Hallsten, Lennart, Voss, Margaretha, Stark, Stefan, Josephson, Malin, and Vingard, Eva. 2011. “Job Burnout and Job Wornout as Risk Factors for Long-term Sickness Absence”. Work, No. 38(2): 181-92. Herriot, Peter. 2001. “Future Work and Its Emotional Implications”. In Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications for Management, edited by Roy L. Payne, and Cary L. Cooper, 307-326. New York: John Wiley. Hirschfeld, Robert R., Feild, Hubert S., and Bedeian, Arthur G. 2000. “Work Alienation as an Individual-Difference Construct for Predicting Workplace Adjustment: A Test in Two Samples”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, No. 30(9): 1880-1902. Houston, B. Kent, and Vavak, Christine R. 1991. “Cynical Hostility: Developmental Factors, Psychosocial Correlates, and Health Behaviors”. Health Psychology, No. 10: 9-17. 70 James, Matrecia S.L. 2005. “Antecedents and Consequences of Cynicism in Organizations: An Examination of Potential Positive and Negative Effects on School Systems”, Ph.D. diss., College of Business, Florida State University. James, Matrecia S.L., and Shaw, John C. 2016. “Cynicism across Levels in the Organization”. Journal of Managerial Issues, No. XXVIII(1-2): 83-100. Johnson, Jonathan L., and O’Leary-Kelly, Anne M. 2003. “The Effects of Psychological Contract Breach and Organizational Cynicism: Not All Social Exchange Violations are Created Equal”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 24: 627-647. Kanter, Donald L., and Mirvis, Philip H. 1989. The Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and Disillusion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kanungo, Rabindra N. 1982. Work Alienation: An Integrative Approach. New York: Praeger. Kelley, Herold H. 1972. “Attribution in Social Interaction”. In Perceiving the Causes of Behavior Attribution, edited by Edward E. Jones. New Jersey: General Learning Press. Kompier, Michiel. 2005. “Dealing with Workplace Stress”. In Handbook of Stress Medicine and Health, edited by Cary L. Cooper. London: CRC Press. Kökalan, Özgür, and Anaş, Kübra. 2016. “Çalışanların Örgütsel Sinizm Tutumlarının İşe Yabancılaşmaları Üzerine Etkisi: Vakıf Üniversiteleri Üzerine Bir Çalışma”. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, No. XI (II): 97-109. Krueger, Alan, and Rouse, Cecilia. 1998. “The Effect of Workplace Education on Earning, Turnover and Job Performance”. Journal of Labor Economics, No. 16: 62-94. Li, Shuang, and Chen, Yang. 2018. “The Relationship between Psychological Contract Breach and Employees’ Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Mediating Effect of Organizational Cynicism and Work Alienation”. Frontiers in Psychology, No. 9-1273: 1-13. Luthans, Fred, and Youssef, Carolyn .M. 2004. “Human, Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital Management: Investing in People for Competitive Advantage”. Organizational Dynamics, No. 33(2): 143-160. Margelytė-Pleskienė, Aida, and Vveinhardt, Jolita. 2018. “The Quintessence of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Cynicism”. Sciendo, No. 14: 67-88. Maslach, Christina, and Jackson, Susan E. 1981. “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout”. Journal of Occupational Behavior, No. 2: 99-113. Maslach, Christina, Jackson, Susan E., and Leiter, Michael P. 1996. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Maslach, Christina, and Leiter, Michael P. 1997. The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, Georgia, and Hastings, Richard P. 2001. “Coping, Burnout and Emotion in Staff Working in Community Services for People with Challenging Behaviors”. American Journal on Mental Retardation, No. 106: 448-459. Mirvis, Philip H., and Kanter, Donald L. 1991. “Beyond Demography: A Psychographic Profile of the Workforce”. Human Resource Management, No. 30(1): 45-68. Mishra, Jitendra, and Morrissey, Molly A. 1990. “Trust in Employee/Employer Relationships: A Survey of West Michigan Managers”. Public Personnel Management, No. 19(4): 443-485. Muehrcke, Jill. 1991. “Is There a Cure for Cynicism?” Nonprofit World, No. 9(5): 2. Nair, Nisha, and Vohra, Neharika. 2009. “Developing a New Measure of Work Alienation”. Journal of Workplace Rights, No. 14(3): 293-309. Naus, Fons, van Iterson, Ad, and Roe, Robert A. 2007. “Organizational Cynicism: Extending the Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Model of Employees’ Responses to Adverse Conditions in the Workplace”. Human Relations, No. 60(5): 683-718. 71 O’Reilly, Charles A. and Chatman, Jennifer. 1986. “Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior”. Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 71: 492-499. Organ, Dennis W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, Dennis W. 1990. “The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior”. In Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by Barry M. Staw, and Larry L. Cummings, 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Örücü, Edip, Yumuşak, Sedat, and Bozkır, Yasin. 2006. “Kalite Yönetimi Çerçevesinde Bankalarda Çalışan Personelin İş Tatmini ve İş Tatminini Etkileyen Faktörlerin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma”. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, No. 13(1): 39-51. Özgener, Şevki, Öğüt, Adem, and Kaplan, M. 2008. “İşgören-İşveren İlişkilerinde Yeni Bir Paradigma: Örgütsel Sinizm”. In Örgütsel Davranışta Seçme Konular, edited by Mahmut Özdevecioğlu, and Himmet Kaplan, 53-72, Ankara: G.Ü.V. İlke Yayınevi. Prajogoa, W., Wijaya, Nikodemus, H.S., and Kusumawatic, Heni. 2020. “The Relationship of Organisational Cynicism, Emotional Exhaustion, Creative Work Involvement and in Role Performance”. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, No. 12(5): 201214. Premeaux, Shane R., and Mondy, R. Wayne. 1986. “Problem Employees: The Cynic”. Management Solutions, 14-17. Qian, Yuxia, and Daniels, Tom D. 2008. “Corporate Communications”. An International Journal, No. 13(3): 319-332. Reichers, Arnon E., Wanous, John P., and Austin, James T. 1997. “Understanding and Managing Cynicism about Organizational Change”. Academy of Management Executive, No. 11(1): 48-59. Robbins, Stephan P., and Judge, Timothy A. 2012. Örgütsel Davranış. Translated by İnci Erdem. Istanbul: Nobel. Sager, Jeffrey K., Griffeth, Rodger W., and Hom, Peter W. 1998. “A Comparison of Structural Models Representing Turnover Cognitions”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, No. 53: 254273. Schaufeli, Wilmar B., and Greenglass, Esther R. 2001. “Introduction to Special Issue on Burnout and Health”. Psychology and Health, No. 16: 501-510. Schyns, Birgit, Torka, Nicole, and Gössling, Tobias. 2007. “Turnover Intention and Preparedness for Change: Exploring Leader Member Exchange and Occupational Self-Efficacy as Antecedents of Two Employability Predictors”. Career Development International, No. 12(7): 660-679. Shahnawaz, M. Ghazi, and Jafri, Md. Hassan. 2009. “Psychological Capital as Predictors of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, No. 35: 78-84. Sığrı, Ünsal, and Basım, H. Nejat. 2006. “İş Görenlerin İş Doyumu ile Örgütsel Bağlılık Düzeylerinin Analizi: Kamu ve Özel Sektörde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma”. Selçuk Üni. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, No. 6 (12): 131-154. Singh Sabia, and Randhawa, Gurpreet. 2018. “Exploring Work Alienation: A Proposed Model of Predictors and Consequences”. Journal of Management Research, No. 18(3): 139-151. Şen, Cem, and Basım, H.Nejat. 2018. “The Impact of Psychological Capital on Job Performance and Cynicism: The Moderator Effect of Cultural Tightness-Looseness”. Social Sciences Studies Journal, No. 4(19): 2402-2423. doi:10.26449/sssj.648. Tett, Robert P., and Meyer, John P. 1993. “Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover 72 Intention, and Turnover: Path Analysis Based on Meta-Analytical Findings”. Personal Psychology, No. 46(2): 259-293. Thompson, Richard C., Joseph, Kurt M., Bailey, Lawrence L., Worley, Jody A., and Williams, Clara A. 2000. Organizational Change: An Assessment of Trust and Cynicism, Office of Aviation Medicine. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC, Report No: DOT/FAA/AM-00/14. Triandis, Harry C. 1971. Attitude and Attitude Change. New York: Wiley. Ugboro, Isaiah, and Obeng, Kofi. 2000. “Top Management Leadership, Employee Empowerment, Job Satisfaction, and Customer Satisfaction in Total Quality Management Organizations: An Empirical Study”. Journal of Quality Management, No. 5: 247-272. Van Dyne, Linn, Graham, Jill W., and Dienesch, Richard H. 2017. “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation”. Academy of Management Journal, No. 37(4): 765-802. Vroom, Victor H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley. Wanous, John P., Reichers, Arnon E., and Austin, James T. 1994. “Organizational Cynicism: An Initial Study”. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 269-273. Wanous, John P., Reichers, Arnon E., and Austin, James T. 2000. “Cynicism about Organizational Change: Measurement, Antecedents, and Correlates”. Group and Organization Management, No. 25(2): 132-53. Wasti, S. Arzu. 1999. A Cultural Analysis of Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intentions in a Collectivist Society, Academy of Management Proceedings, 1999 IM, B1-B6. Weiner, Bernard. 1976. “Attribution Theory, Achievement Motivation and Educational Process”. Review of Educational Research, No. 42: 201-215. Weiner, Bernard. 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag. Weiss, Howard M., and Cropanzano, Russel. 1996. “Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work”. Research in Organizational Behavior, No. 18: 1-74. Wilkerson, J. Michael. 2002. “Organizational Cynicism and Its Impact on Human Resources Management”. In Human Resources Management: Perspectives, Context, Functions, and Outcomes, edited by Gerald R. Ferris, Ronald Buckley, and Donald B. Fedor, 532-546. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wilkerson, James M., Evans, W. Randy, and Davis, Walter D. 2008. “A Test of Coworkers’ Influence on Organizational Cynicism, Badmouthing, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, No. 38(9): 2273-2292. Wright, Thomas A., and Bonett, Douglas G. 1997. “The Contribution of Burnout to Work Performance”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, No. 18: 491-499. Wright, Patrick M., Dunford, Benjamin B., and Snell, Scott A. 2001. “Human Resources and the Resource Based View”. Journal of Management, No. 27: 701-721. Yasin, Tahreem, and Khalid, Shazia. 2015. “Organizational Cynicism, Work-related Quality of Life and Organizational Commitment in Employees”. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, No. 9 (2): 568-582.