Envy in Organizational Life - PolyU

IO

Envy in Organizational Life MICHELLE K. DUFFY, JASON D. SHAW, AND JOHN M. SCHAUBROECK

People responded (to bonus award information) in one of three ways when they heard how much richer they were: with relief, with joy, with anger. Most felt some blend of the three. A few felt all three distinctively: relief when told, joy when it occurred to them what to buy, and anger when they heard others of their level had been paid much more. —Michael Lewis, Liar’s Poker H989, p. 201)

Michael Lewis’s depiction of his colleagues at Salomon Brothers underscores the fact that people value organizational resources not only for what they provide us but also for what they tell us about ourselves. To the investment bankers at Salomon Brothers. the bonuses received from the organization were construed not only in terms of possible material rewards (“joy when it occurred to them what to buy”), but also as a signal of the bankers’ status and worth within the larger Salomon group and organization (“anger when they heard others of their level had been paid much more”). According to theories of social comparison, such reactions are not uncommon. People have a fundamental need for certainty about their place within the world and their drive for self evaluation is sated not simply by obtaining objective information but also through comparison with peers (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Festinger, 1954). Although people can receive favorable identity-relevant information from these socialtcomparison processes, they may also nd their workplace identities damaged when the comparison is unfavorable (Hogg, 2000). When people believe that they compare unfavorably with others in their workplace, feelings of envy may arise. ' K Within organizational settings there are numerous work-based scenarios (e. g., promotions, group- or team-based job design, pay increases, bonuses, performance recog-

nition) that are likely to elicit social comparisons and spawn feelings of envy among employees that have largely destructive consequences (Duffy & Shaw, 2000). First, in many organizations employees engage in close, frequent interactions and have high levels of interdependence. Thus their jobs offer bountiful opportunities for peer-based social comparisons. These social comparisons, while at times occurring privately, often take place in public and put individuals’ social standing in flux and their reputation on the

l I68

Envy in Organizational Life

Envy in Organizational Life.

existing approaches to the study of episodic (as opposed to dispositional) envy in the organizational literature, review lessons learned from the previous decade of research and offer suggestions for the future of workplace envy research.

measures is the model in many contemporary organizations. Indeed, organizationsioften design and use systems that implicitly induce envy in order to motivate employees to higher levels of performance (Stein, 2000). Third, many people spend as much or more of their lives at work than in other life domains (Muchinsky, 2003). For these reasons it should be no surprise that the experience of envy in organizational life is believed to be relatively common (Dogan & Vecchio, 2001; Foster, 1972; Miner, 1990; Vecchio, 1999). Presumably in response, numerous seminars are offered by practitioners and consultants to help individuals cope with the destructive forces of envy at work (http://

wwwgerald-suarez.com/envy%20at%20work.htm). Several recent business-oriented

Antecedents of Workplace Envy 1

1

books, including riveting stories of the destructive forces of envy in the workplace, also

line bookstore shelves (Westhues, 2004, 2006). It is curious, then, that the topic of workplace envy, while growing, has received limited conceptual and empirical attention in organizational research. With the exception of organizational justice studies, social comparison research has largely been absent from organizational research (Brown, Ferris, Heller, & Keeping, 2007). The neglect of workplace envy may simply be part of this larger lack of interest in social comparison. Inattention to workplace envy may also re ect the lack of interest in emotion in organizational research. Although most organizational scholars acknowledge the central role emotions play in the workplace, many even now seem to regard organizations “as places where feelings have been managed, designed out, or removed” (Patient, Lawrence, & Maitlis, 2003, p. lOl5).’Organizational envy, as one of the “nasty emotions” (Lazarus & Lazams, 1994), may be seen as socially taboo, making it particularly vulnerable to overrationalization and neglect from organizational members and scholars alike (see Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). This social unacceptability may also make workplace envy less visible than other organizational emotions as attempts are made to suppress, avoid, or normalize feelings of hostility and inferiority associated with envy (Vince, 2001). Neglecting the role of envy in organizational life limits our understanding of a multitude of organizational events and phenomena across multiple domains and strata within organizations (e.g., individual performance, team effectiveness, corporate climate, human resource management systems). ‘ ' ' Despite its nascent stage, a body of research investigating workplace envy is emerging. The dialogue in the organizational literature began in the mid-1990s with two seminal papers that appeared almost concurrently in the literature. The rst was an exploratory essay aimed at academics and practitioners published by Art Bedeian in 1995. It provided an analysis of how envy might play a role in workplace contexts and offered

some suggestions for dealing with its potentially negative consequences. This essay was accompanied in the literature by a key integration of the topic of envy into the workplace literature by Robert Vecchio, also in 1995. Scholarly attention in the organizational eld following these calls by Bedeian and Vecchio, although promising, remains rather sparse (for examples, see Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004; Vecchio, 2000, 2005; and Vidaillet, 2006, in-press). In this chapter, we hope to stimulate additional research on the topic of workplace envy. Building on the foundation established by Bedeian (1995) and Vecchio (1995), we survey

169

i

l

Workplace envy, like other forms of envy, starts with a relatively simple question (“Why not me?”) and is characterized by having a “talent for disguise” (Epstein, 2003). Organizational researchers agree that envy is elicited when a social comparison takes place in a domain of self-importance to the perceiver and when the comparison target appears to be similar to the perceiver (e.g., “others of their level”). One thing that may be unique about organizational social comparisons is that many, if not most, are made in public. Although one may experience envy at work in a private sense or by engaging in a social comparison that others do not know about, most social comparisons happen via public announcements or through emotion-laden and often rancorous public discussions. This nuance is captured in the Salomon Brothers example used to open this chapter. The process of making unfavorable social comparisons was a group-based process—many employees were doing so simultaneously when they heard that “others of their level had been paid much more.” Note here how the process of making these comparisons is often initiated by many people simultaneously. The workplace affords the opportunity for a given individual to make multiple unfavorable social comparisons at the same time. These comparisons are often based on inaccurate and exaggerated information that becomes even more distorted over the course of time. Given the embryonic stage of this research, relatively little is known about the speci c organizational antecedents that may elicit organizational envy. Current theorizing regarding the antecedents of workplace envy is generally grounded in social comparison, relative deprivation, and self-esteem maintenance (self-esteem maintenance [SEM]; Tesser, 1988) models. Each of these models offers a great deal of promise for understanding workplace envy, because organizational life can be characterized by both uncertainty and competition, both of which are believed to elicit social comparisons that strive to meet self-evaluation and enhancement needs (Brown et al., 2007). To date, organizational researchers have primarily focused their examinations on the role of individual cognitions, organizational factors, and supervisor-subordinate interactions. We review each of these envy perspectives below.

l

Cognitions In one of the more ambitious studies on workplace envy, Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) examined envy in the C/) [€X[ of promotion decisions; in particular, they examined the predictors of invidious’ emotions and the consequences in terms of perceived injustice and job performance/(among bank workers who were denied promotion. Using relative deprivation theory as a foundation, they argued that because being selected for

T I

170

. .

I



|7|

promotion “was a signal of the organization’s opinion of the individual” (p. 35), a

may ultimately create substantial economic burdens for organizations because the social

signi cant sign of public recognition, and it also involved a substantial increase in base salary, the experience of being rejected for promotion was a situation ripe for invidious reactions. _ Beyond the contextual relevance, Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) argued that high promotion expectations and a high level of perceived similarity between the rejected individual and the promoted individual would enhance invidious social comparisons. Within relative deprivation theory, the psychological importance of a particular situation to an individual depends on the discrepancy between what one desires and what one actually receives. Here, this discrepancy was examined as the belief that one would be promoted (high expectation) and the perception that one was similar to the promoted individual. The researchers reasoned that the deprivation experienced from being rejected for promotion when expectations were high would result in a mild negative reaction (disappointment), but that this reaction would be exacerbated into envy when perceived similarity was high as well. Extending the norm of status equality from Heider’s (1958) theory, Schaubroeck and Lam argued that “when a coworker one perceives as being self-similar is promoted, the desire for equalization of status with him or her may make the outcome more psychologically important ex post” (2004, p. 35). Stated differentially, dashed expectations may be de ating regardless of the context, but the reaction devolves into envy when undermet expectations are combined with high perceived similarity between the individual and a coworker. Strong support for this hypothesis was found among a sample of tellers in 43 work units of Hong Kong National Bank. When perceived similarity with the eventual promotee was reported to be low among rejectees before the promotion decisions were made (i.e., when they were simply peers, and no distinction between “promotee” or “rejectee” could be made), promotion expectations were not signi cantly related to envy of the promotee after the decisions. However, there was a strong positive relationship between promotion expectations and promotion envy among rejectees who had earlier perceived high similarity with the peer who was eventually promoted. Their results point to the importance ofcomplex patterns of cognitions in related to workplace envy levels.

Scholars have noted that organizational systems and structures allow envy to flourish

comparison costs triggered by envy may ultimately outweigh the economic advantages associated with market-based compensation. Organizational systems that emphasizes “win versus lose,” relative differences in performance, or zero-sum outcomes (e.g., traditional merit pay pools distributed based, on within-unit supervisor evaluations of performance) may be associated with higher levels of negative emotion, including envy. These competitive reward structures may also increase envy by enhancing threat perceptions and overall stress levels (Vecchio, 2000). . . Despite the attention paid to the very high pay of many executives, these are merely outliers in what economists have noted are very egalitarian pay distributions across many different industries and around the world (Frank, 1984; Lazear, 1989). Technically, an egalitarian wage distribution is one in which the better paid workers are paid less than the value of their marginal products, whereas those who are lowest on the pay distribution are paid more. Frank (1985) has argued that highly productive and valuable workers are in a sense paying an “envy tax” to mollify lower paid workers who, despite their lower marginal products, perform work that is necessary for the organization. On one hand, some very productive workers may leave the organization because other organizations that are less envy-conscious will pay them better. On the other hand, some productive workers have such a strong preference for the higher status that being higher in the rank-order distribution of pay in the organization is more important to them than their absolute level of pay. Dynamics resulting from these varied preferences are often called the “frog-pond effect.” Although research on this topic is predominantly conceptual, the existing empirical results provide some, albeit relatively modest, support for the argument that competitive reward structures may result in higher incidents of organizational envy. Vecchio (2000, 2005) found competitive reward structures to be correlated with higher levels of envy in two studies, although this relationship was not signi cant after controlling for personality and other work design issues. Although making summary judgments about these ndings may be premature, it is likely that the dynamics of rewards and envy are more complex and dynamic than can be expressed in a simple correlation table. For example, there is some confusion in the literature concerning envious reactions when individuals are performing poorly in an absolute sense versus perfortiring poorly in a relative sense—these distinctions may play a strong role in determi mg whether individuals have envious reactions under competitive reward systems. F r example, Salovey and Rodin (1984) found high levels of envy only when indiv/id als performed poorly compared to

in organizational life (Nickerson & Zenger, 2005; Vecchio, 2005). It has long been

others and compared to an “average” benchmark. Several researchers have argued that

recognized by many social science scholars that zero-sum, competitive situations are “breeding grounds for various feelings of ill-will” (Smith, 2000, p. 193). For example, organizational envy is readily shaped by management as they control the selection of referents for comparison and various stimuli (e.g., compensation, accolades; Ma & Nickerson, 2006, p. 17). The infusion of market-based compensation systems in organizations enhances employees’ tendencies to invidiously comparing their compensation with that of their colleagues (Nickerson & Zenger, 2007). These social comparisons

the physical design of work relates to envy levels. Although work interdependence is often extolled in terms of creating “team spirit” and connected “communities of fate,” the literature provide some evidence that highly interdependent tasks increase the likelihood of the negative consequences of social interactions and that lowering this interdependence may reduce the possibility of negative social comparisons that precipitate envy (Vecchio, 2000). Along this line, Ma and Nickerson (2007) argued that managers may choose to adopt less ef cient work designs, including greater physical distances

Organizational Factors

i

I72

Envy in Organizational Life » I73


between workers or partitioning technologies (including outsourcing) to reduce interaction in order to reduce envy levels. '

Perceptions of Supervisor—Subordinate Interactions

correlated with a perceived workplace unfairness measure that included items relating to procedural (e.g., “achieved advantage over me through undeniably unjust actions or unjust procedures”) and distributive (e.g., the “advantage was unfairly obtained.”) justice. In a similar way, Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) found that envy of promotees was positively related to reward or distributive unfaimess. In addition to the consideration and supportiveness variables_that have been studied previously and which, as we noted above, may highlight the role of interpersonal justice in envy, there are likely to be many other ways that the study of leadership can help to understand and reduce envy in the workplace. For example, across many studies, trans-

Although this area of research is in its early stages in the work-related literature, there is a much larger literature on justice perceptions and envy in the social psychological literature (see Smith, l99l) that is pertinent for discussing the work-life issues in this chapter. Two lines of inquiry here seem to be of particular importance. First, Vecchio’s (2000) examination of supervisor behavior (e.g., consideration) as a source, neutralizer, or magni er of worker envy relates closely to the concept of interpersonal injustice. Indeed, the leadership consideration construct examined by Vecchio (2000) shares much in common with the construct of interpersonal or interactional justice examined in the organizational literature (Colquitt, 200]). The sample item offered by Vecchio (2000) from the Stogdill and Coons (I957) measure (“My supervisor’s relation with me can be described as friendly and approachable”) is similar in content to items found in interpersonal justice measures from Colquitt (2001) and Bies and Moag (1986; e.g., the extent to which an authority gure has “treated you in -a polite manner”). Similarly, the sample item from the leader-member exchange measure in Vecchio’s (2005) analysis from the Graen, Scandura, and Graen (1986) measure (e.g., “How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs'?”) also suggests that much is in common with interpersonal justice. It is likely, as Vecchio (2000) notes, that considerate managerial behaviors are a signal of fairness, and a heightened sensitivity to fairness and justice may reduce invidious emotion. This view of the fairness—envy relationship has some currency. As Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007) stated “perceived unfairness might itself become a source of envy-provoking disadvantage experienced by a person” because “the person experiencing unfair treatment might infer that he or she is not a valued member of the organization” (p. 667). Although there is clear empirical evidence that envy and unfairness are distinct constructs and the correlations between them is moderate in magnitude, there are differences in opinion in terms of whether unfairness is a consequence (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004) or an antecedent (Vecchio, 2000) of envy, or whether unfairness serves to exacerbate its negative eifects (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007). The effects of justice in terms of reducing workplace envy could operate in one of two ways. First, upholding societal and workplace norms associated with fair inter-

resources occurs along the lines of distributive outcomes (e.g., promotions or pay raises) or processes (e.g., attention from a supervisor/quality mentoring relationships), it is a clear threat to one’s professional identity ( lfeldon, 2007). Moreover, the “dual focus” of envy (on self and other), results in pos ' le outcomes associated with both the envier and the envied (Smith, 2000). The majp ity of organizational envy research has focused its attention here with interesting and at times paradoxical results. We review this line

personal treatment may suppress orweaken the negative emotional response generated

of work below.

by unfavorable social comparisons. Second, it is possible that the leader consideration variable examined by Vecchio (2000) is also proxy for other forms of organizational justice——including procedural or distributive justice—that may serve reduce envy by eliminating or greatly reducing the number of situations where esteem-damaging social comparisons are made. Although not focused on the direct relationship between envy and unfairness, per se, Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007; see below) found that envy was positively

formational leadership behaviorhas demonstrated positive relationships with several work unit and individual outcome variables, including job performance, worker ef cacy,

and performance (for a meta-analytic review, see Judge & Piccolo, 2004). A primary mechanism through which transfonnational leadership in uences follower behavior is the priming of a more collective orientation to the work. An example is the leader teaching others how to better assist the group and exhorting followers about the bene ts of cooperation and self-sacri ce. It seems likely that successfully engaging the collective identity (i.e., the extent to which the person is thinking of himself or herself as a member of the unit rather than as an individual) of each follower reduce the coworker envy resulting from an uneven distribution of favorable rewards or recognition.

Consequences of Workplace Envy

_

Envy goes to the heart of people’s professional identity. Vidaillet eloquently (2006) argued that the experience of envy at work touches on who people are professionally, who they wantto be, who they believe they are, and what they have failed to become (p. 21). As noted above, people evaluate their professional identity in the organization by assessing the quality and level of the resources they are receiving from the group (see Tyler &

Blader [2003] for a discussion of the group engagement model). Whether a de cit in

,

Workplace Attitudes and Quit Propensities Perhaps the most easily identi able outcomes of organizational envy are speci c attitudinal outcomes including organization-based self-esteem, satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Because invidious reactions involve a threat to one’s work-related identity (Vidaillet, 2006), these emotions would seem to set the stage for lower levels

"tr I74


_


.

These ndings are in line with recent theoretical developments in the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003). According to these researchers, a fundamental motivation for cooperating with peers and teammates stems from the personal identity information received from the group. As noted above, one important source of identity information stems from justice evaluations. Perceptions of injustice experienced in the group are believed to weigh heavily on identity evaluations and ultimately dampen motivation to work well with fellow group members. Johnson, Selenta, and Lord (2006) have evolved this line of thinking by demonstrating that justice effects differ depending on the situational identities that are primed by the context. Speci cally, based on Brewer and Gardner’s.(l996) seminal work, people can engage individual, relational, or collective identi cation processes that are based on the type of social comparison that is made salient by situational and dispositional in uences. Johnson et al. (2006) fotiiid that the effects of social comparisons associated with injustice are stronger when people engage a collective identity and the target of social comparison is an out-group member, or when people engage their individual identities and the target is a member of the in-group. Along similar lines, Duffy and Shaw (2000) provided evidence of the pervasive negative effects ot envy on relationship quality. ln a longitudinal study of 129 student teams designed to mimic" the characteristics of work teams in business settings, these authors argued that higher levels of envy in teams would decrease group level cohesiveness aiid potency (a form of team ef cacy) and these mediators would in turn lower group performance, increase team member absenteeism, and diminish group satisfaction. In addition, envy was expected to lower effort levels (increase social loa ng) on group tasks, further hampering relationship quality. The authors found that the effects of envyion group absence and satisfaction levels were carried through increased social loalin g in groups as well as through reduced group cohesiveness and potency, whereas group performance was diminished through i/ncreased levels of social loa ng and lower group potency. / V .Of note here is that cohesiveness includes elements of interpersonal attraction as well as elements related to group COITl|;A1[n1Bl'1l. (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995). In terms of absenteeism and satisfaction levels in particular, this study demonstrates how, over time, envy can erode relatio . ip quality within working groups. Again, while not commented on by Duffy and Shaw (2000), the group engagement model may also provide a useful backdrop for interpreting these results. Groups characterized by higher levels of envy may have contained members who identi ed less with the group than

of organization-based self-esteem, de ned as an eniployee’s perception of adequacy and worthiness within an organization (Gardner & Pierce, I998). Organization-based self-esteem is formed, maintained, and changed in part based on interpretations of external cues from the work environment, which include unfavorable social comparisons with others. ln his re ection theory, Thierry (2001) argued that individuals may “read such signals to a large extent in performance results (of themselves or others), in power differentials, in leadership behaviors, in organizational rules and procedures, in informal social relationships, and so forth” (Thierry, 2001, p. l5l). As a result. experiences that provide individuals information that serves to lower their social standing should also be associated \vitli'reductions in organization-based self-esteem. In the only test of this reasoning, Vecchio (2000) found a strong negative correlation between envy and organization-based self-esteem (-0.50). * Vecchio (2000) also argued that two other job-related attitudes—-job control and quit propensity—-relate to envy. Proposing that that envy conveys “information that one is not able to control environmental forces that pose threats to one’s social standing” and that searching for alternative employment is oneway of coping with invidious emotions, he found both variables correlated with envy——lack of control (r = 0.58) and quit propensity (r : 0.27). In a recent study, Vecchio (2005) found that envy was negatively related to job satisfaction (r = -0.35). ‘

Coworker Relationships

'

Drawing on the richer history of the study of envy in social psychology, organization researchers have begun to explore what may be the most insidious outcome of envy in organizational life—how the experience of envy serves to degrade organizational relationships (see Westhues, 2004, 2006). Extending I-leider’s-(1958) balance theory, Tesser’s (1988) SEM model provides a backdrop for understanding why coworker relationships would deteriorate as the result of envy. Tesser’s (1988) theory posits that how people react to social comparisons in competitive domains is partially determined by their level of psychological identi cation with the comparison other. When a coworker receives a desired outcome and the emotion associated with an unfavorable social comparison is experienced, an individual may attempt to protect or restore his or her selfiinage in any number of constructive or destructive ways. Individuals may choose to revise their psychological identi cation with the rival, by opting to diminish the personal importance of the social comparison by denying the legitimacy of an outcome that

groups characterized by lower levels of envy. The lack of cohesion and performance

produces an unfavorable social comparison, or alter other perceptions of the unfavorable comparison (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004). Devaluing other coworkers may serve these purposes as well. For example, Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) found that promotionrelated envy among individuals rejected for promotion was positively associated with perceptions of reward injustice, which were associated with their perception that the promotee was less likable than they had reported before the promotion event. Likewise, Dunn and Schweitzer_(2006) reported on their earlier work as revealing a negative asQnriatinn between envv and affective trust and other indicators of relationship quality.

I75

i

may have re ected a higher level of disengagement from the group among members of the groups reporting higher envy. ~ In the case of absenteeism, envy can have a direct role not only on the envier through disengagement such as social loa ng but also indirectly to peers through contagion. Bamberger and Biron (2007) found that peer contagion processes create absenteeism norms that play a substantial role in overall-absenteeism. Moreover, Roberson (2006) presented -evidence that convergence of justice perceptions in teams, as is reflected in

I76

.


justice climates, is produced in no small part by the interaction of members with those who may perceive more extreme unfairness and thus frequently speak and act upon their feelings of injustice. If indeed perceived envy and injustice can ramify in the manner suggested by these studies, this provides further cause to seek a better understanding of complex group dynamics in studies of these constructs.

Individual Performance

. -

_

.

An interesting comparison can be made between the ndings of Duffy and Shaw (2000) on envy and group level performance, and those of Schaubroeck and Lam (2004), who found a fairly strong positive relationship "between invidious reactions to being passed over for promotion and their future job performance. 4 months Envy explained l9% of the variance in performance, which was measured 4 months after envy was measured. The job performance of tellers was assessed by supervisors in terms of efciency (e.g., cash drawer ovei-ages and shortages), conscientiousness, and customer service quality. ' As Schaubroeck and Lain point out, there is “no evidence that any negative emotions engendered by these upward social comparisons, such as envy, are a psychological barrier” to emulating the behavior of the individual with whom the unfavorable comparison has been made (2004, p. 37). We suggest here that this nding may be one example of the “cognitive-emotional cross re” proposed by Beach and Tesser (2000) that may occur in upward social comparisons. Rejectees who experienced negative affect (envy) as a result of the unfavorable upward comparison to their fellow promotees may also have learned useful information about themselves and found the comparison to be motivating to reach higher levels of performance (Brown et al., 2007). In part, upward social comparisons may motivate individuals by highlighting the “role model” status of the referent (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). A good deal of experimental research on goal setting shows that losing something to a rival results in the setting of higher performance goals iii subsequent tasks. Much like a toy on a children’s playground, the outcomeor possession of the targeted person may be "attractive to an individual simply because the other person possesses it, a notion similar to that articulated by Vidaillet (2006) in her theory of mimetismé and envy. In the Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) study, perceived similarity to the promotee positively related to envying him or her. (Vidaillet (2006) would argue that the promotion became something highly valued because another (similar) person had obtained it and the envious rejectees in-

creased their performance with the hopes of obtaining the same results. What the other had obtained (a promotion) became more deeply desired and hence individuals motivated were motivated to increase their performance to attain it. In contrast, those who were perceived to be less similar were not envied, and thus the perceived value of the outcome_was unaffected and the promotees were not emulated.) A key point here is that often the desired outcome in these studies is not highly desirable in an absolute sense, but the unfavorable social comparison motivates goal ..,.i,;,..m.ma.1»- in nrr'lPr tn Pr‘|1t5ili7P. niirnnnies with a strong referent other. In work contexts

Envy in Organizational Life ‘ I77

these outcomes are often pecuniary (e.g., base pay, bonuses) , involve a variety of sub _ fmmlal Peljqulslles (e.g., additional vacation days, company cars), and often increase in the quality of life at work (e.g., a better of ce a desirable parking space) Although there are many trivial work-related outcomes in an absolute sense many of them are objectively important in terms of one’s lifestyle and mobility. Thus catching up to a rival may provide an intrinsic motive that leverages the extrinsic motives such as earning more money. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that envy engenders a high level of motivation to achieve outcomes such as promotion, and thus it is a topic that deserves future exploration. 5

5

.

Sabotage One ‘of the most promising areas of envy research in organizational settings concerns the link between it and workplace antisocial behavior. Although workplace antisocial behaviors come in many forms, the link between envy and social undermining behaviors seems to be especiallyrobust (Vecchio, 2007). Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon (2002) de ned social undermining as behaviors directed at another coworker that are “intended to hinder, over time, the ability [of the targeted person] to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and a favorable reputation (p. 332). Undermiiiing offers several “bene ts” over other forms of antisocial behaviors. First, they are subtle behaviors that are design to weaken by degrees (Duffy et al., 2002). The subtleness of these behaviors may act as a buffer and some protection against possible sanctions for engaging in them at work. Second, undermining behaviors can be active (e.g., spreading rumors) or passive (e.g., failing to defend someone). Passive undermining behaviors, in particular, may not be n/oticed by others in the work environment, icncltiding the target. Third, underminingis by de nition directed at another person. t iven that envy IS also an emotion tlyt arises from a comparison with a single person, 1‘ Seem5_ VCYY f sonable to hat undermining the envied individual would often

be considered an option fo

ening the score. (Invidious reactions concern a desired

outcome that another possesses, and social undermining behaviors are intended to coniplicate another’s personal relationships and cause the target to perform more poorly at work (Dunn & Schweizer, 2006). iAlthough increasing job performance or effort is a more ‘functional’ way of turning the tables on a rival, undermining the rival may also result in the same desired outcome. For example, in a fascinating exploration of the tall poppy syndrome, Mouly and Sankaran (2002) tell the story of high achieving lecturer

(a “tall poppy”) whose career was undermined by an envy-laden peer evaluation prof1fiSSSiltlal]118I' university. Although recognized to be an outstanding teacher and researcher, poppy was ultimately denied tenure and promotion because, by the authors’ account, her departmental peers sabotaged her personal reputation and service record in a departmental tenure meeting. d6rmTilI\:’iZ0l1£:; pi: f6]2;S;;:g1gfrl£)Of eplipelcnng.alrelgtionship between envy and social unWm Ovef me devi10 ‘ml .e i eratuie. . irst, individuals who experience ‘envy , , p a more favorable attitude about engaging in social undermining

Envy in Organizational Life I78

l79


held by the envied person, and thereby protect the envier‘s self-esteem.'Based on a social exchange framework, Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007) also argued that engaging in interpersonal harming behaviors as a response to envy is more likely when the envier perceives unfairness as a reason for the target’s perceived advantage. In particular, an unfair situation may exacerbatethe negative effects of envy and result in greater lev . _ L "-7 _ els of harming behaviors. The authors then developed a competing prediction based on attribution theory. In an unfair situation, although envious emotion may arise when another holds a valued outcome, an individual’s self-esteem may not be threatened because the advantage held is seen as being ill-gotten. In contrast, when another holds an advantage in a fair situation, an individual’s ability and likability are in question, esteem is threatened, and he or she may be more likely to respond to envy by engaging in interpersonal counterproductive work behavior. ' ‘ Among a sample of 188 employed individuals, Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007) found support for the rst hypothesis; that is, the relationship between envy and interpersonal COL1I1I61'pI‘O(lUC[lV6'b6l'l2lVlOfS was stronger when there was perceived unfairness in the work environment. In a second study, these authors found that the envy by unfairness interaction in predicting counterproductive behaviors was strongest among high self-esteem individuals. In particular, there was a strong positive relationship between envy and interpersonal counterproductive behaviors only when unfairness and self-esteem were both high.

behavior, and these attitudes will eventually translate into intentions to engage in destructive forms of undermining behaviors (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2006). Second, group norms supporting social undermining may also contribute to favorable attitudes about such behavior, which further exacerbates the relationship between envy and social undermining (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2006; see also Duffy, Shaw, Scott, & Tepper, 2006). In such cases, a shared social construction that legitiinizes social undermining and other sabotage behaviors may emerge. According to the “tall poppy” account noted above, faculty‘ members distorted and reconstmed the facts surrounding the tenure case in question, enabling them to deny tenure without believing what they had done was unethical.). Recently, Scott and Duffy (2007) argued that Bandura’s (1990) concept of moral disengagement is a plausible mediating mechanism between envy and social undermining behavior. Moral disengagement is de ned as a set of cognitive mechanisms that permit individuals to commit harmful acts and avoid the guilt feelings that are normally associated with such behavior. As long as personal sanctions against harm-doing are engaged (i.e., people expect to experience self-reproach if they were to engage in such behavior), people are neither as willing nor as likely to actually harm others. When individuals morally disengage, however, they rationalize harmful behavior to avoid personal responsibility for their conduct, and they may even believe that such conduct is bene cial for others (Batson, Thompson, Seuferling, Whitney, & Strongman, 1999). Scott and Duffy (2006) argued that that the interplay of an unfavorable social comparison and invidious emotions can facilitate the disengagement of moral self-regulatory mechanisms. Several aspects of normal self-regulation may be relaxed under these conditions. As noted elsewhere in this chapter, envy leads people to devalue others. Devaluing or disliking someone may result in a dehumanizing view of them that reduces them to creatures unworthy of respect or kindness (Bandura, l990). Envy is also likely to elicit other moral disengagement mechanisms including moral justi cation and attribution of blame. Moral justi cation involves a rede nition of harmful conduct as honorable. Attribution of blame involves blaming the victim for one’s own antisocial act. In the case of envy, it is likely that an envious person may view the referent as “bringing the undermining on themselves” because they are unworthy of their advantage (Scott & Duffy, 2007). In a study of simulated work teams over a 4-month period, Scott & Duffy (2007) found a signi cant and positive relationship between envy and social undermining behavior measured 2 months later. Moral disengagement completely mediated the relationship. Moreover, they found that this mediated relationship was stronger among high self-esteem individuals, who prior research showed were more concerned about relative standing in group contexts. ' Workplace envy and interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors were also linked in a novel organizational envy study designed by Cohen-Charash and Mueller (2007). In this study, interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors were de ned in a way similar to social undermining behavior in that they are directed at another person and include interference with work performance, sabotage, withholding information, and other personal hindrances.-These authors mgued that efforts to harm others can -a,1..M cs.=i;Ms r frnctrafinriq nqQrir‘iaIP.(l with eiivv. downolav the oereived advantage

l tl

Future Research Directions

,//

The conceptual and empiricalglyé provides a number of interesting insights into the role of the social emotion/o ‘ envy at work. There is considerable potential for future development of the work that has been conducted to date, and the eld is just beginning to develop more precise formulations of the role of envy in various processes. Still, there is relatively little empirical research on the topic, and much remains to be done conceptually as well as empirically in terms of understanding workplace envy’s antecedents and consequences. Qn a broader level, one arena that holds great promise for understanding antecedents of envy lies in considering recent work on social comparisons in an organizational context (see “Special Issue on Social Comparisons,” 2007). As Goodman and Haisley (2007) note, the relationships between organizational factors and social comparison processes remain relatively unexplored. Moreover, much of the

l

extant research examining the relationship between organizational factors and social l l

l

l i-

comparison has been “more of an ex post explanation rather than ex ante theory buildmg” (Goodman & Haisley, 2007, p. ll4). A major step forward would be to develop a social comparison-based model of workplace envy that explicitly recognizes organizational factors as in uencing the mediating processes that initiate social comparisons (e.g., those that elicit self-esteem and self-enhancement goals). In terms of consequences,_we suggest that organizational envy researchers take a deeper look at the premises outlined in the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader,

I80



2003). Although’, the model speci cally focuses on the positive emotions of pride and respect as being fundamental for forming identity status judgments, it is also likely that the negative emotion of envy may inform group identity evaluations. Individuals who believe they have been treated unfairly may feel their “identity security” to be threatened via the emotion of envy. Without this security, people may not feel comfortable engaging with their colleagues on an affective or behavioral level.'A natural extension then would be to integrate tenets of both social comparison formulations and the group engagement model when theorizing about envy in organizational life. More fully integrating social comparison and justice models may afford organizational researchers a more comprehensive framework for understanding emotional reactions to social exchanges. In addition to these broad perspectives, we see several other speci c potential avenues for future research and offer these below.

The Experience of Being Envied At Work Although high performers enjoy a special status in organizational life, those who outperform others may experience discomfort and unease arising from a concern as to how their achievements are perceived by others (Exliiie & Geyer, 2003). As we reported above, there is some empirical evidence that those who outperform others at work are subject to envy. For example, in the Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) study, those who were promoted were the targets of envy and dislike among those rejected for promotion. Moreover, they found that higher the initial (before the promotions were made) liking of the eventual promotee, the less the nonpromoted persons liked the same person after he or she was promoted. In the only study of being the target of envy at work, however, it should be noted that Vecchio (2005) found that people who are envied experience less negative affect than enviers. Although they did not speci cally study the emotion of envy, a promising line of work can be found in a study conducted by Henegan and Bedeian (2007). These researchers argued and found that the discomfort experienced by outperformers after being the target of upward social comparisons had a complicated relationship with being the target of social comparisons. Speci cally, when individuals were the target of upward social comparisons and were uncomfortable with being the object of these comparisons, they tended to respond by presenting themselves in a modest fashion and engaged in behaviors aimed to avoid the situation (e.g., leaving the room when the subject came up). In addition, and consistent with previous research (see Exline & Lobel, 1999), Henegan

l l J l i

i

l l

l

l l

l I.

$7-.;-.-=.—-—.

it

self-presentation in response to referents that focus their negative affect externally, but that their choice to engage in such behaviors is not related to feelings of concern or empathy” (Henegan & Bedeian, 2007, p. 24). That is, individuals have different reactions to being envied as a function of the characteristics of the envier. When enviers display their negative affect, the envied may act in a more modest fashion, but the Henegan and Bedeian (2007) results suggested that they do not do so because they “feel-sorry” for the envying individual but rather because they wish to reduce their own discomfort. From a different perspective, however, it may also be fruitful to investigate the causes and consequences of misperceiving that one is envied by others. In a series of studies, Menon and Thompson (2007) demonstrated that people readily overestimate the threat they pose to the self-image of others through their high performance, prestigious af liations, and other states to which envy is often associated. Thus, they exaggerate the extent to which they are envied by others. A by-product of this perceptual bias is that the (inaccurate) awareness of others’ envy in uences their behavior toward others in adverse ways, such as through avoidance and condescension, and this creates a dynamic whereby others ful ll one’s expectations by engaging attitudes and actions that degrade one’s relationships with them. In essence, this perspective suggests that when people believe they are envied, tli 9 help create the conditions we have discussed above, which appear to be caused entir y by the attitudes of the putative enviers. For example, Barry Bon , a tremendously successful baseball player, has over the years acquired a reputation/for maintaining social distance from not only the media and fans, but also from his teammates. Many of the latter have remarked unfavorably about him to the press. Although these observations could result from various causal sources, it lS'[;iOSSlbl€.Il121I Bonds’ early success and lucrative contracts made him especially sensitive to signs of envy from his teammates (The acclaim and rewards likely also reinforced self-enhancement biases.), and his attempts to elude what he perceived as envy created conditions that sowed the seeds of discord. When such disharmony led to remarks and actions that seemed to devalue him as a player or as an individual, it likely would reinforce his (mis)perception of the high prevalence of envy among his teammates, because resentment has the appearance of envy even when envy may not be present. As stated by Menon and Thompson (2007), “We suggest that these basic and self-enhancing perceptions reveal how competition and envy emerge in organizations (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004; Vecchio, 2000)-—or at least, how people imagine they emerge” (p. 2). If self-enhancement is indeed even part of the dynamic whereby envy. develops in social settings such as organizations, then researchers need also to

consider how‘ people seek to enhance their own self-images by imagining envy where

and Bedeian reported that as a result of this combination (being the target and being uncomfortable with it), individuals. deliberately reduced their performance levels to avoid future upward social comparisons. Participants often reported that they did less than their best so that others would not be threatened, deliberately performed mediocre work to allow someone else to do better, and reduced effort levels to be less than the best. It is notable that the reasons for engaging in these types of behaviors were often not motivated by concern for the person making the upward comparison. As the authors stated. “the results of our studv suggest that outoeiformers may engage in acts of modest

l8l

l

l

it may not exist. Q We encourage researchers to attempt to disentangle the various dynamics associated with experiencing envy and believing one is envied. Ultimately, the eld may succeed in developing a model or models that can accurately predict when envied individuals engage in different behaviors. Envied individuals clearly make calculations and balance the costs of future upward comparisons and loss of coworker good with the bene ts of goal achievement, and as yet this calculushas remained largely unexamined.

AT I82



Envy and Job Performance—Examining Multiple Levels

Duffy and Shaw (2000), who found a negative relationship between mean envy levels and loa ng in groups, it is possible that the enviers were not the loafers in these groups. The enviers may have been chie y responsible for lower the group cohesion levels and, by engaging in destructive competition within the group, lower potency levels. But it is also possible that those who were the targets of envy contributed substantially to the higher levels of social loa ng may have been those carried by those who were envied. To summarize, although the ndings appear contradictory, they could potentially

'

The studies of Duffy and Shaw (2000) at the group level and Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) at the individual level showed that envy can have markedly different effects on how employees perform their dirties at work. Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) made a motivational argument; that is, individuals often take unfavorable social comparisons as a challenge and attempt toleven the score or even turn the tide on the referent by performing very well. Duffy and Shaw (2000) made a group performance argument based on the negative in uence envy levels have on interiial group processes. There are several key differences between these two studies that can be compared to explain the contradictory ndings. The rst is level of analysis. Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) focused on individual-level envy and performance, whereas Duffy and Shaw (2000) examined average envy in a group context and group performance levels. The type of interdependence and the measures of performance used in these two studies can also be a basis for explaining the ndings. Teller performance in the bank setting was assessed with a supervisor-rated measure that including cash drawer reconciliation accuracy and other aspects of quality performance. In this setting, competition with other tellers (group members) for better scores on the individual measure would not detract from overall group performance. This type of group interdependence is pooled—all individual performance levels are simply summed for the total measure of group performance. Invidious reactions that resulted in higher motivation, in this case, would not only increase individual performance but also enhance the overall level of performance in the branch. Thus within-group competition resulting from envy increases group performance in a work context characterized by pooled interdependence situation. If grouplevel performance measures were available in the Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) study, we would anticipate that average envy levels would relate positively to teller group (or branch-level teller) performance. In the Duffy and Shaw (2000) study, the nature of task interdependence was reciprocal in nature—class teams working on multiple projects and assignments throughout the term. In these situations, any iiiterindividual competition related to envy is detrimental to group functioning because it reduces overall effort levels, increases con ict, and lowers expectations about how well the group can perform tasks. It is interesting to compare the mean level analyses, not only with Schaubroeck and Lam’s (2004) individual level performance results, but also with the results of Henegan and Bedeian (2007). Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) observed higher ratings of individual performance among among the nonpromoted persons who envied the promotee the most, and they suggested that this results might be explained by competition-induced motivation. Henegan and Bedeian (2007) found evidence of effort reduction by envied individuals. (Notably, Schaubroeck and Lam [2004]) observed that promoted individuals received substantially lower performance ratings after the promotion, such that on average their ratings were lower than nonpromoted persons. However, this cannot be con dently linked to effort reduction on their part, especially given that these recent promotees were adapting to completely new jobs and performance criteria.) When triangulating these ndings with

I83

be explained by differences in levels of analysis and forms of task interdependence, and the dynamic interplay betwieen enviers and those envied, as was observed by Henegan and Bedeian (2007), complicates comparisons. We encourage future researchers to undertake studies that expldre multilevel processes, as these may shed more light on when and for whom moti\/iation and performance are increased and decreased as a result of workplace envy. /Sftudies that examine the effects of envy across different group interdependence levels would be a step in this direction. Using multiple levels of analysis and cross-level tests could help untangle these varied dynamics found among individuals and groups. It would also be useful to include multiple types of performance measures (both at the individual and group level). For example, in a group context, envy may increase individual performance on certain dimensions by enhancing intermember competition but envy may reduce other measures of individual performance such as peer evaluations of performance qualityl

Affective Events and Envy l

i i I

.

We concur with Greenberg, Ashton-James, and Ashkanasy (2007) that Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) affective events theory could usefully employed by researchers interested in the in uence of" emotions on unfavorable social comparisons. Affective events theory posits that situational events at work, such as a situation that creates an unfavorable social comparison, creates an emotional or affective response that, in turn, results in behavioral changes. In addition to examining the sequence of events (situation, social comparison, response, and outcomes) associated with envy, incorporating more variables associated with affective events, in particular the intensity of the emotional response, would be very useful in terms of understanding work-related envy. There is very little information in the organizational literature about how long invidious emotional reactions last and the short- versus long-term implications of their stability. It is reasonable to assume that some envious reactions are eeting even if

they are initially intense, whereas others may be mild in their original form but build in intensity and stability over time. Greenberg et al. (2007) advocated longitudinal designs that incorporate experience sampling or day reconstruction methods for capturing dynamic emotional uctuations. These techniques would also allow for powerful Within- and between-person predictions about the effects of envy. Better understanding the longevity of envy responses is needed to designing effective longitudinal studies of envy at work. - .

* T I84

Envy in Qrganizational Life


according to Klein (1975), “the a ility to admire another’s achievements is one of the factors that making successful te ni work possible” (p. 260). Likewise, rgun, the experience of being happy and sup ortive of others, is also likely to be limited in a context in which individuals are ui ble to appreciate the qualities and successes of their colleagues (Cohen-Charash, E ez, & Bavli, 2002). Firgtuz requires one to accept the success of others “without grudge,” envy, or spite and is important tolorganizational success (Cohen-Charash et al., 2002).

Conclusions We end with the thought that it may be bene cial to reconsider how scholars view envy in organizational life. Tripp and Bies_(2007) argued that the “managerial perspective,” which views emotions primar_ily through organizational and managerial lenses, is the dominant perspective in organizational justice research. This perspective attributes emotion-generated problems to “malcontented” employees who are not acting “profes-

ln addition to serving as a signal that something may need repairing in the organi-

sionally.” Such a case could be made in terms of the study of organizational envy, in that envy is seen primarily as a source of dysfunction for organizations that is primarily the responsibility of the envying employee. Employees who do not manage their envy appropriately may be viewed as “bad” or “unprofessional,” and this is no help to their own well-being, let alone the effectiveness of the organization. Bies and Tripp (2002) offered an alternative perspective on emotions such as organizational envy-—the employee-centered perspective. This perspective assumes that negative emotions (i.e., anger, rage, envy) are natural and foreseeable. Employees experiencing envy in organizational life are not inherently dysfunctional simply because they experience or act on envy. Viewed from this lens, then, widespread envy and the costs associated withit can provide an effective signal that something is seriously wrong in the organization (e.g., with structures, processes, and/or practices) that requires managerial attention. Rather than looking at how to solve the “problem employee.” managers and scholars might look instead at the ‘systems in place to motivate and measure performance. Does combativeness among individuals or departments permeate the organizational climate? Is theclimate one that encourages comparisons with oneself or colleagues as a measure of growth or productivity in a way that elicits self-centered cognitions (“Why not me?!”) that are inconsistent with collaborative task requirements? Indeed, some organizations, such as General Electric, take pride in their “warrior” cultures, wherein intense achievement striving that is almost inseparable from interemployee and interunit competition is a primary work ethic and cooperation is secondary.Although there is nothing inherently wrong with promoting competition and growth within organizations, such a focus can lead to a mindset, at the corporate level, that is not only self defeating but toxic as well. 'Any organizational system (e.g., performance appraisal), or “model of excellence” (Morris, l997) that places substantial emphasis on a what one currently lacks and colleagues possess or focuses employees’ attention on their own disadvantages and colleagues’ advantages is a prime breeding ground for the intense feelings of envy that can undermine the cooperative ethos on which all organization’s depend (Smith, 2000). As Morris (1997) notes, what is true of any employee can be true of an entire unit or organization. Just as any one individual can be lled with envy, an organization can be pervaded by a climate of envy. The toxicity in this situation arises not only from the effects of envy but also from the destructive forces that arise when employees are unable to admire others with whom they work without experiencing intense envy. A workplace in which individuals within work units cannot appreciate the achievements and qualities of their colleagues is deprived of a natural source of satisfaction and enrichment (see Klein, 1975). Indeed,

185

t

l I 1 i

1 1

i>

P

zational context, an employee-centered approach would recognize that envy can serve a positive role in organizations; that is, it is not always “bad” or “dysfunctional” (see Lazarus & Cohen-Charash, 2001; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004). Although envy is viewed predominantly in negative terms for both the envier and the envied (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2007), under certain circumstances invidious reactions to others’ success may ultimately motivate performance and self-efficacy. Evidence from the social comparison -literature provides fairly convincing evidence that reactions to upward social comparisons can vary from hostility and demoralization to self-efficacy and motivation depending on how the target of the comparison is perceived (Brown et al., 2007). If the target is believed to be similar—“She could be me!”—(i.e., assimilative effect), the result is likely to be one of inspiration, as the achievements and qualities in the envied “arouse in them a picture of . . . what they might become” (Klein, 1975, p. 262) rather than one of demoralization that occurs with contrast effects (Collins, 2000; Smith, 2000). Building on the work of social psychologists, Brown and colleagues (2007) suggested that whether one has an assimilative or a contrastive reaction to a social comparison may depend on the social context of the organization. Organizational environments that promote cooperation elicit a more assimilat.ive effect, whereas competitive environments produce a contrastive effect. This mechanism remains unexplored, and thus open questions remain as to whether the experience of envy at work can be harnessed via assimilative mechanisms to become a source of productivity and initiative. _ The experience of envy at work produces a wealth of fascinating scenarios and anecdotes but it also provides numerous possibilities for future research. Our goal has been to review the excellent work that has been done to date and also to provide a point of departure for potentially fruitful research avenues. We hope that the preceding review and analysis elicits greater attention to workplace envy in the research literature and inspires researchers to undertake studies of envy at work at multiple levels (individual, group, and organizational), from distinct perspectives (the enviers and the envied), and through the lens of diiferent organizational constituencies (subordinates, supervisors, and executives).

References Ajzen, l. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory a planned behavior. ln J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds), Action-control: Fram cognition I0 behavior (pp. l 1-39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. . l s i

T 186

I

l


Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 95, 48-61. Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. (2007). Group norms and excessive absenteeism: The role of peer referent others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, I03, 179-196. Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27-46. Batson, D., Thompson, E., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 525-537. -

Beach, S.R.H., & Tesser, A. (2000). Self-evaluation maintenance and evolution. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 123-140).

New York: Plenum. Bedeian, A. (1995). Workplace envy. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 49-56. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J . Lewicki, B. I-I. Sheppard, & M. H. Baserman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, _CT:_JAl Press. Bies, R. J ., & Tripp, T. M. (2002). Hot ashes, open wounds: Injustice and the tyranny of emotions. In S. Gilliand, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on managing organizational justice. (pp. 203-232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. ‘ Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and selfrepresentations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 7], 83-93. Brown, D. J ., Ferris, D. L., Heller, D., & Keeping, L. M. (2007). Antecedents and consequence of upward and downward comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 59-75. Bunnk, A., & Gibbons, F. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a eld. Organizational Behavior" and Human Decision Processes, I02, 3-21. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,

666-680.

i

Cohen-Charash, Y., Erez, M., & Bavli, K. (2002, August). I am so happy for you: Firgun in organizations. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Emotions and Organizational Life, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in social comparison. In J . Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison.‘ Theory and research (pp. 159-171). New York: Plenum. _ Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

Dogan, K., & Vecchio, R. P. (2001). Managing employee envy in the workplace. Compensation and Bene ts Review, 33, 57-64. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45, 331-351. Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 3], 3-23. Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. D., & Tepper, B. J. (2006). The moderating roles of selfesteem and neuroticism in the relationship between group and individual undermining. Journal of/lpplied Psychology, 9], 1066-1077.


I87

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E/(2006). Green and mean: Envy and social undermining in organizations. Research on yanaging Groups and Teams, 8, 177-197. r Epstein, J. (2003). Envy. New York: Oxford University Press. . Exline, J . J., & Geyer, A. L. (2003). Who ’s afraid of being envied? Trait and demographic correlates of CTD discomfort. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

.

Exline, J. J ., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 307-337.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 1 17-140. Foster, G. (1972). The anatomy of envy: A study of symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, 13, 165-202. r Frank, R. H. (1984). Are workers paid their marginal products? American Economic Review, 74, 549-571. ’ Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York: Oxford University Press. "

Gardner, D. G. & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-ef cacy within the organizational context. Group and Organizational Management, 23, 48-70. Goodman, P., & Haisley, E. (2007). Social comparison processes in an organizational context: A new direction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 109-125. Graen, G., Scandura, T. A., & Graen, M. R. (1986) A eld experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal ofApplied Psychology 7], 484-491. Greenberg, J ., Ashton-James, C. E., "& Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, I02, 22-41. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J ., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology ofinterpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Henegan, S., & Bedeian, A. (2007). The perils of workplace outpetformance." Coping with the discomfort of being upward comparison targets. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Illinois University. 1-logg, M. A. (2000). Social identity and social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 401-421). New York: Kluwerl Plenum. Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the selfconcept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175-201. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89, 755-768. Klein, M. (1975). Envy and gratitude and other works, ] 946-1963. New York: Free Press.

Lazarus, R., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in organizational life. In R. Payne and C. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research and applicationsfor management (pp. 45-81). Chichester, England: Wiley. Lazarus, R. & Lazarus, B. (1994). Passion and reasoning: Making sense of our emotions. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazear, E. P. (1989). Pay equality and-industrial politics. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 561-580. ' g Lewis, M. (I989). Liar 's poker: Rising through the wreckage on Wall Street. New York: Norton.

Y

/

I

//

I88

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91‘-103.

l

v r 1

Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. (2007). Env_v, comparison costs, and the economic theory of the rm. Unpublished manuscript, Washington University. V

i-

I1.1 , ;..'S.;‘_i¢

Patient D Lawrence T. B. Maitlis. S. (2003). Understanding workplace envy through narrative ction. Organizational Studies, 24. 1015-1044. _ Roberson Q i\l. (2006). Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemakirig in the emerDvence of justice . .. climates . Organivational Behavior and Human Decision Processes I00,. 177-192. 1 , ~ Salovey P 8i Rodin J. (1984). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 780-892. Schaubroeck J . M. & Lain S.'S.K. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 33-47. ' i _ A Schoeck, I-l. (1969). Envy: A t/ieory of social behaviour. Philadelphia: Liberty Fund. V Scott K D & Duffy M. K. (2006). When leaders envy: The in uence ofnegative leader emotion on individual undermining and well-being. Presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA. Scott K D & Duffy M. K. (2007). A longitiidiiial analysis of moral disengagement, emotion and undermining behavior within a work-based context. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA. Sheldon O. (2007). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Smith R. (2000). Emotional reactions to social CQmp 1'i$0115- In 1- S1115 & 1- Wh elef (E93-), Handbook of social comparisons: Theory and practice (pp. 173—200)~ Plenum Publishers: New York. _ Smith, R. H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In P. Salovey (Ecl.), The psychology o_f_1eal-

ousy and envy (pp. 79-102). New York: Guilford Press. x

H

L Q.

i >7 . it r-1;’

fl .1

O

. . . rganizational Life

I89

Tesser, A. 1988. Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in

biases in threat appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, in press. Miceli M. & Castelfranchi, C. (20O7).VThe envious mind. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 449-479. Miner, F. (1990). Jealousy on the _job. Personnel, 69, 89-95. Morris, T. M. (1997). lfAristotle ran General Motors. New York: Henry ‘Holt. Mouly, VS, & Sankaran, J (2002). The enactment of envy within organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, I, pgs. 36-56. . Munchinsky. P. M. (20()3).‘Psychology applied to work (7th ed.)- Belmmll. CA? Wad$W0fth/ Thomson Learning, lnc. '1 1 I i 1 v .

‘E r: ' rl

nvy .in

Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. (2007). Scholarly biases in studying justice and emotion. In D. DeCrenier (Ed.) Advances in the psychology ofjustice and affect. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 1 _

l

Ma L. & Nickerson, J . A. (Z006). The impact of envy on organizational structure andincentives. 7 Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GAMenoii T. & Blount, S. (2003). The messenger bias: How social relationships affect the evaluaJ tion of knowledge. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 137-187. Menon, T., & and Thompson, L. (2007). D0n’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Self-enhancing

7

E


Lockwood P. & Kunda, Z. 1997. Superstars and me: Predicting impact of role models on the self.

i

~

‘

Smith R H. & Kim S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46-64. Special Issue on Social Comparisons. In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro, cesses, J02, 2007. l ' Stein, M. (2000). “Winners” training and its trouble. Personnel Review, V29, 445-459. I Stogdill, R., & Coons, A. (Eds). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measuieinen (Research Monograph No. 88). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Bureau of Bus1neSS Research. . -

r,. ,'.

at

. a 2\-.‘ .»

4 -'».; ‘.1 .»