Cynicism

Conceptual Overview

Initial accounts of organization cynicism assume it is a dysfunction that can potentially be “solved.” Researchers working in this tradition have identified a range of causes of cynicism. Psychological causes include personality traits that predispose an individual to mistrusting others. Organizational causes include the violation of psychological contracts between the firm and the individuals, the existence of ambiguous roles that produce conflicting pressures, and employees experiencing poorly executed organizational change programs. These studies imply that cynicism can be eradicated through a range of interventions such as open and honest communication.

A second approach argues that cynicism cannot be eradicated because it is caused by deeply ingrained social structures. These structural causes include the contemporary culture of narcissism, which encourages excessive self-interest and which naturally leads to a pronounced disbelief in traditional institutions; a multinational capitalist system that is increasingly precarious and continually destroys all patterns of social stability; and the ongoing march of the Enlightenment, which debunks all traditional belief systems.

A third understanding of cynicism is as a strategy used by employees to protect themselves from various threats to their sense of self in the workplace. Erving Goffman argues that members of institutions typically engage in role-distancing behavior in which they stand back and pour scorn on the social roles they play. This helps them to distance themselves from the stresses and strains of the role and defend other roles they might play.

Critical Commentary and Future Directions

There is considerable controversy over whether cynicism is a form of resistance, and how effective it actually is. Some argue that cynicism is a widespread form of covert resistance that employees use to retaliate against the managerial initiatives. Defenders of this approach claim that employees who engage in sly cynical attacks such as defacing corporate propaganda or making jokes at their bosses' expense are able to score small but nevertheless meaningful victories over their more powerful superordinates.

A second group argues that cynicism does not represent a meaningful challenge to organizations and managerial initiatives, but in many cases actually strengthens them. This is because cynics typically engage in relatively innocuous critique, which may seem risqué to them, but is of no real consequence to the broader power structure of the organization. This means that would-be critics develop a sense that they are free to speak their mind, thereby reconciling themselves with broader structures of domination.

A third group has extended this point by drawing on Peter Sloterdijk's analysis of cynicism to show how organizational cynicism works by creating a situation in which organizational members develop “an enlightened false consciousness.” This involves a situation in which the cynic is enlightened about the problematic nature of his or her activities, but continues to undertake these activities despite his or her own misgivings. Thus, cynicism involves a fundamental split between highly critical beliefs and attitudes on the one hand, and compliant behaviors on the other. This suggests that cynicism is bound to remain fundamentally ineffective because it is trapped in attitudes and beliefs. It is only when cynicism takes on the form of debunking behavior that it is a subversive form of resistance.

...