Navigating Ambivalence: Perceived Organizational Prestige–Support Discrepancy and Its Relation to Employee Cynicism and Silence

• Author: Olivier Herrbach,Caroline Manville,Karim Mignonac,Carolina Serrano Archimi
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12330
• Date: 01 July 2018

Navigating Ambivalence: Perceived Organizational

Prestige–Support Discrepancy and Its Relation to

Employee Cynicism and Silence

Karim Mignonac, Olivier Herrbach,

Carolina Serrano Archimi and Caroline Manville

University of Toulouse 1 Capitole; University of Bordeaux; Aix-Marseille Universite

ABSTRACT Drawing on the social identity literature, this study offers theoretical arguments and

empirical evidence to understand reactions to divergent perceptions of organizational external

prestige (PEP) and organizational support (POS) – two crucial bases of employees’ social

worth. Across three studies, using both experimental and field data, we find that PEP-POS

discrepancy contributes to employees’ perceptions of organizational cynicism and silence

behaviour, especially when PEP is high and POS is low (rather than the reverse). Consistent

with our social identity perspective, we find that ambivalent identification, that is, the

simultaneous identification and disidentification of an individual with an organization, is a key

mediating mechanism that transfers the interactive relationship of PEP and POS to cynicism

and silence. These findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the

dynamics of individuals’ social worth at work.

Keywords: ambivalent identification, organizational cynicism, perceived external prestige,

perceived organizational support, silence

INTRODUCTION

Individuals are generally motivated to maintain or enhance perceptions of their self-

worth (Blader and Yu, 2017; Greenberg et al., 1992; Tajfel and Turner, 1986), that are

largely derived from membership in social groups such as the employing organization

(Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). In this quest for self-enhancement

(Sedikides and Gregg, 2008), employees – as organizational members – can both rely on

their employer’s perceived social standing (i.e., perceived external prestige; Dutton

et al., 1994; Smidts et al., 2001) and on their own beliefs about how they are valued and

Address for reprints: Karim Mignonac, TSM-Research (UMR CNRS 5033), Universite Toulouse 1 Capitole,

CRM, B^at. J., 2 rue du Doyen Gabriel Marty, 31042 Toulouse, France (karim.mignonac@ut-capitole.fr).

V

C2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies 55:5 July 2018

doi: 10.1111/joms.12330

cared about by their employer (i.e., perceived organizational support; Eisenberger et al.,

1986). Indeed, both perceived external prestige (PEP) and perceived organizational sup-

port (POS) are status-related evaluations

[1]

that may provide employees with a sense of

pride in their organization and a feeling that the organization respects them (Fuller

et al., 2006a,b; Tyler, 1999; Tyler and Blader, 2003).

Previous research has provided ample evidence that employees’ positive self-

perceptions drawn from organizational prestige and organizational support – consid-

ered independently – are beneficial for both individuals and companies, as they foster

employees’ organizational identification, which in turn leads to positive work outcomes

such as organizational citizenship behaviours (e.g., Carmeli, 2005; De Roeck et al.,

2016; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Faroq et al., 2017; Fuller et al., 2006b). What remains less

clear, however, is how employees react when perceived external prestige and perceived

organizational support are discrepant, that is, when employees receive conflicting infor-

mation about the status they derive from organizational membership.

Such ambivalent situations of belongingness appear increasingly in contemporary

organizations (Lewis, 2000; Pratt and Doucet, 2000; Smith and Berg, 1987; Weigert

and Franks, 1989). Indeed, employees are continuously exposed to different organiza-

tional signals (Drover et al., 2017) and sources of self-defining information which, given

‘the complexity and dynamism of organizational life, engender a number of potential

oppositions’ (Ashforth et al., 2014, p. 1458). For example, organizations increasingly try

to manage their image by sending positively framed messages to external stakeholders

via corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and employer branding (Crane

and Glozer, 2016; Lievens and Slaughter, 2016). This means that there is increased like-

lihood that employees – who (often indirectly) receive such messages, while also being

confronted with the organization’s reality – hold different perceptions from those held

by outsiders (Zavyalova et al., 2017). Stories of externally prestigious (but internally

unsupportive) work organizations are echoed by steadily growing attention from the

popular press (e.g., Kantor and Streitfeld, 2015; Scheiber, 2015). Conversely, some

organizations may not be well-perceived by the general public even though they provide

their employees with highly supportive working conditions.

Despite the likely occurrence of prestige-support misalignment in modern organiza-

tions, little is known about whether, why and how this has consequences for both

employees and organizations. Perceptions of external prestige and organizational sup-

port have generally been studied independently from one another, thus precluding

investigation of the potential effects of their discrepancy. Consequently, our theoretical

understanding of how people make sense of and react to divergent perceptions of status

in the workplace remains limited; this is particularly unfortunate given that ‘social worth

is among peoples’ most critical and pervasive considerations at work’ (Blader and Yu,

2017, p. 800). This is the research gap that we address in this study. Adopting a social

identity lens, we propose that situations of PEP-POS discrepancy lead employees to

experience organizational cynicism, that is, to believe that organizational choices are

inconsistent, unreliable and based on (concealed) self-interest (Dean et al., 1998). Addi-

tionally, we propose that the cognitive conclusion that the organization is cynical, in

turn, motivates employees to remain silent, that is, to intentionally withhold ideas, infor-

mation, and opinions about work-related improvements (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

838 K. Mignonac et al.

V

C2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Moreover, we cast employees’ ambivalent identification, defined as the extent to which

employees experience contradictory thoughts and feelings toward their organization

and their membership of it (Kreiner and Ashforth, 2004), as a key mechanism that

accounts for the proposed relationships between PEP-POS discrepancy and employee

cynicism and silence.

Our research makes several contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to a

more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of individuals’ social worth at work

(Blader and Yu, 2017). While prior research has examined the simultaneous influence of

judgements about the status of the organization and judgements about one’s status in the orga-

nization on job attitudes and organization-supportive behaviour (e.g., Faroq et al., 2017;

Fuller et al., 2006b; Tyler and Blader, 2000), it has largely failed to consider how these

can interact. Our work offers theoretical arguments and empirical evidence to further

understand reactions to different bases of social worth when these diverge (Dutton et al.,

2016; Swider et al., 2011).

Second, we contribute to research on organizational cynicism, a widespread work-

place phenomenon. Following Kanter and Mirvis’ (1989) initial investigation, research

has flourished and suggests that employee cynicism negatively affects job-related atti-

tudes and job performance (Chiaburu et al., 2013) and encourages deviant behaviours

and intention to leave the organization (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Chiaburu et al.,

2013; Lorinkova and Perry, 2017). By introducing a novel contingency as antecedent

(i.e., PEP-POS discrepancy) and a novel outcome (i.e., employee silence), we extend our

theoretical understanding of organizational cynicism and respond to calls for more stud-

ies investigating organizational practices that may increase or reduce employee cynicism

(Chiaburu et al., 2013; Scott and Zweig, 2016).

Third, our study contributes to the literature on ambivalence in organizations.

Ambivalence reflects the idea that organizational phenomena cannot always be inter-

preted in unequivocally favourable or unfavourable ways; rather, they have a complex

and multi-faceted nature that can lead individuals to feel mixed emotions, experience

paradoxical cognitions and enact multiple, potentially contradictory roles (Ashforth

et al., 2014). While this general idea is readily acknowledged, much theoretical and

empirical work is still needed regarding the antecedents, mechanisms and consequences

of ambivalence in workplace settings (Guarana and Hernandez, 2016; Schuh et al.,

2016). By studying PEP-POS misalignment as a determinant and cynicism as an out-

come of ambivalent identification, we contribute to a literature that is receiving increas-

ing attention from management scholars (Rothman et al., 2017).

Finally, we challenge the idea that employees’ positive perceptions of organizational

prestige are consistently beneficial for companies. Since high PEP has been shown to be

positively related to a variety of employee outcomes, influencing employees’ beliefs

about outsiders’ impressions of their organization (i.e., promoting PEP) has become an

important goal of many corporate communication campaigns (Davies et al., 2010; Gill,

2015; McDaniel and Malone, 2009). We suggest and test that this strategy may backfire

when there is a mismatch between PEP and employees’ evaluation of the support they

get from their organization. By doing so, we also respond to calls to examine various sit-

uations in which a high reputation may be both a benefit and a burden for an organiza-

tion (Zavyalova et al., 2016).

839Prestige–Support Discrepancy, Cynicism and Silence

V

C2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies