Duffy-Shaw-Schaubroeck 2008 Envy.pdf

1. 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., pro-
motions, 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

2. I68 Envy in Organizational Life.
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
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 excep-
tion 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 or-
ganizational 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, Law-
rence, & Maitlis, 2003, p. lOl5).’Organizational envy, as one of the “nasty emotions”
(Lazarus & Lazams, 1994), may be seen as socially taboo, making it particularly vul-
nerable 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 understand-
ing 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 emerg-
ing. 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 ex-
ploratory 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 work-
place literature by Robert Vecchio, also in 1995. Scholarly attention in the organiza-
tional 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. Build-
ing on the foundation established by Bedeian (1995) and Vecchio (1995), we survey
l
1
1
i
l
l
Envy in Organizational Life 169
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.
Antecedents of Workplace Envy
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). Orga-
nizational 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 be-
comes 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 theo-
rizing regarding the antecedents of workplace envy is generally grounded in social com-
parison, 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 in-
dividual cognitions, organizational factors, and supervisor-subordinate interactions. We
review each of these envy perspectives below.
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 rela-
tive deprivation theory as a foundation, they argued that because being selected for

3. 170 Envy in Organizational Life
promotion “was a signal of the organization’s opinion of the individual” (p. 35), a
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 in-
dividual and the promoted individual would enhance invidious social comparisons.
Within relative deprivation theory, the psychological importance of a particular situa-
tion 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 in-
dividual. 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 psy-
chologically 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 indi-
vidual 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.
Organizational Factors
Scholars have noted that organizational systems and structures allow envy to flourish
in organizational life (Nickerson & Zenger, 2005; Vecchio, 2005). It has long been
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 orga-
nizations enhances employees’ tendencies to invidiously comparing their compensation
with that of their colleagues (Nickerson & Zenger, 2007). These social comparisons
T .
I .
i
I Envy in Organizational Life |7|
may ultimately create substantial economic burdens for organizations because the social
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 percep-
tions 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). Techni-
cally, 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 or-
ganizations 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 person-
ality 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 individu-
als 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
others and compared to an “average” benchmark. Several researchers have argued that
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 likeli-
hood of the negative consequences of social interactions and that lowering this inter-
dependence 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

4. I72 Envy in Organizational Life
between workers or partitioning technologies (including outsourcing) to reduce inter-
action in order to reduce envy levels. '
Perceptions of Supervisor—Subordinate Interactions
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 in-
terpersonal 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 in-
vidious 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 unfair-
ness are distinct constructs and the correlations between them is moderate in magni-
tude, 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 un-
fairness 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-
personal treatment may suppress orweaken the negative emotional response generated
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
Envy in Organizational Life » I73
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.”) jus-
tice. 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-
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 teach-
ing 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 mem-
ber 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) ar-
gued 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 assess-
ing 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
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
of work below. ,
Workplace Attitudes and Quit Propensities
Perhaps the most easily identi able outcomes of organizational envy are speci c at-
titudinal outcomes including organization-based self-esteem, satisfaction, and in-
tentions 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

5. I74 Envy in Organizational Life _ .
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 ex-
ternal 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 infor-
mal 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 emo-
tions, 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 rela-
tionships 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 com-
parison is experienced, an individual may attempt to protect or restore his or her self-
iinage 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 per-
sonal importance of the social comparison by denying the legitimacy of an outcome that
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 promotion-
related 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 as-
Qnriatinn between envv and affective trust and other indicators of relationship quality.
"tr
i
Envy in Organizational Life I75
These ndings are in line with recent theoretical developments in the group en-
gagement 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 mo-
tivation to work well with fellow group members. Johnson, Selenta, and Lord (2006)
have evolved this line of thinking by demonstrating that justice effects differ depend-
ing 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 cohesive-
ness aiid potency (a form of team ef cacy) and these mediators would in turn lower
group performance, increase team member absenteeism, and diminish group satisfac-
tion. 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
loaling 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
groups characterized by lower levels of envy. The lack of cohesion and performance
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

6. I76 Envy in Organizational Life
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 ef-
ciency (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 emo-
tions engendered by these upward social comparisons, such as envy, are a psychological
barrier” to emulating the behavior of the individual with whom the unfavorable com-
parison has been made (2004, p. 37). We suggest here that this nding may be one ex-
ample 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 ex-
perimental 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 articu-
lated 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 moti-
vated 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
5 5 .
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 earn-
ing 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.
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 behav-
iors 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 undermin-
ing 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 coni-
plicate 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 pro-
f1fiSSSiltlal]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 un-
Wm Ovef me devi10 ‘ml .e i eratuie. . irst, individuals who experience ‘envy
, , p a more favorable attitude about engaging in social undermining

7. I78 Envy in Organizational Life
behavior, and these attitudes will eventually translate into intentions to engage in destruc-
tive 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 undermin-
ing (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2006; see also Duffy, Shaw, Scott, & Tepper, 2006). In such
cases, a shared social construction that legitiinizes social undermining and other sabo-
tage 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 undermin-
ing 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 indi-
viduals 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 mecha-
nisms. 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. At-
tribution 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 under-
mining 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 rela-
tionship. 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
l
l
l
l
l
i-
Envy in Organizational Life l79
held by the envied person, and thereby protect the envier‘s self-esteem.'Based on a so-
cial 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 be-
cause 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 inter-
personal 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 inter-
personal COL1I1I61'pI‘O(lUC[lV6'b6l'l2lVlOfS was stronger when there was perceived unfair-
ness 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 be-
tween envy and interpersonal counterproductive behaviors only when unfairness and
self-esteem were both high.
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 ante-
cedents and consequences. Qn a broader level, one arena that holds great promise for
understanding antecedents of envy lies in considering recent work on social compari-
sons 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
extant research examining the relationship between organizational factors and social
comparison has been “more of an ex post explanation rather than ex ante theory build-
mg” (Goodman & Haisley, 2007, p. ll4). A major step forward would be to develop
a social comparison-based model of workplace envy that explicitly recognizes organi-
zational 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,

8. I80 Envy in Organizational Life
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 engag-
ing 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 en-
gagement model when theorizing about envy in organizational life. More fully integrat-
ing 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 out-
perform 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 re-
searchers 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 be-
haviors 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
and Bedeian reported that as a result of this combination (being the target and being un-
comfortable 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 ofmodest
l
J
l
i
i
l
l
l
l
l
l
I.
;-.-
$7
-.-=.—-—...
it
l
l
l
Envy in Organizational Life l8l
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 em-
pathy” (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, presti-
gious af liations, and other states to which envy is often associated. Thus, they exag-
gerate 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 organiza-
tions (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
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.

9. I82 Envy in Organizational Life
Envy and Job Performance—Examining Multiple Levels '
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 mo-
tivational 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 perform-
ing 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 ac-
curacy 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 perfor-
mance. 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 per-
formance in a work context characterized by pooled interdependence situation. If group-
level 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 recip-
rocal in nature—class teams working on multiple projects and assignments throughout
the term. In these situations, any iiiterindividual competition related to envy is detrimen-
tal 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) individ-
ual 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
AT
l
i
i
I
Envy in Organizational Life I83
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
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 Hen-
egan 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 .
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, incor-
porating 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 captur-
ing 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. - .

10. I84 Envy in Organizational Life
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 perspec-
tive,” 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-
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 or-
ganizational 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 be-
cause 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 se-
riously 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 moti-
vate 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 elic-
its 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 indi-
vidual 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 de-
prived of a natural source of satisfaction and enrichment (see Klein, 1975). Indeed,
* T
t
l
I
1
i
1
1
i>
P
i
Envy in Qrganizational Life 185
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 ex-
perience of being happy and sup ortive of others, is also likely to be limited in a con-
text 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).
ln addition to serving as a signal that something may need repairing in the organi-
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 & Castel-
franchi, 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 compari-
sons can vary from hostility and demoralization to self-efficacy and motivation depend-
ing 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). Build-
ing 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 pro-
mote cooperation elicit a more assimilat.ive effect, whereas competitive environments
produce a contrastive effect. This mechanism remains unexplored, and thus open ques-
tions remain as to whether the experience of envy at work can be harnessed via assim-
ilative 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. Beck-
man (Eds), Action-control: Fram cognition I0 behavior (pp. l 1-39). Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer. . l s

11. 186 Envy in Organizational Life
Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Rela-
tions, 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 ofPersonality 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 orga-
nizations (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 emo-
tions. In S. Gilliand, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on managing
organizationaljustice. (pp. 203-232). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. ‘
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-
representations. Journal ofPersonality 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 or-
ganizations. 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 ofsocial 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 ofMan-
agement 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 self-
esteem and neuroticism in the relationship between group and individual undermining. Jour-
nal of/lpplied Psychology, 9], 1066-1077.
T
I
l
Envy in Organizational Life I87
Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E/(2006). Green and mean: Envy and social undermining in orga-
nizations. 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 ofbeing envied? Trait and demographic corre-
lates ofCTD 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 ef-
fects 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 ofbeing 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 self-
concept 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 meta-
analytic 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.

12. Y
i
7
‘E
r: '
rl
ii-
I1
.1 ,
.'S.;‘_i¢
;.
x
H
L
Q.
i >7
. it
r-1;’
fl .1
I88 Envy in Organizational Life
Lockwood P. & Kunda, Z. 1997. Superstars and me: Predicting impact of role models on the self.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 73, 91‘-103. l
Ma L. & Nickerson, J . A. (Z006). The impact ofenvy on organizational structure andincentives.
7 Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA-
Menoii T. & Blount, S. (2003). The messenger bias: How social relationships affect the evalua-
J 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
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 ofAp-
plied 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 .
Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. (2007). Env_v, comparison costs, and the economic theory ofthe rm.
Unpublished manuscript, Washington University. V
Patient D Lawrence T. B. Maitlis. S. (2003). Understanding workplace envy through narrative
ction. Organizational Studies, 24. 1015-1044. _
Roberson Q il. (2006). Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemakirig in the emer-
vence of justice climates Organivational Behavior and Human Decision Processes I00,
D . . .. .
177-192. 1 , ~
Salovey P 8i Rodin J. (1984). Journal ofPersonality 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 ofsocial 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 meet-
ings 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. ‘
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. . -
l
at
v
r
1
r,.
,'.
. a 2-
-.‘
.»
4
-'».;
‘.1
.»
<Ȥ
1»
T.
R.
.1,
H.-
‘JR
4,,
T; .
s-
‘F
/I ~
// E . O . . .
nvy in rganizational Life I89
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. (2007). Scholarly biases in studying justice and emotion. In D. DeCre-
nier (Ed.) Advances in the psychology ofjustice and affect. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing. 1 _
Tesser, A. 1988. Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 2], 181-27.
Tlieirry, H. (2001). The reflection theory on compensation. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thi-
erry, H. (Eds.), Work motivation in the context ofa globalizing economy (pp. 149-166).
-Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T., & Blader. S. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice. social identity
and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
Vidaillet, B. (2006). Les ravages de l’envie an travail. Paris: Editions d’Organisation Eyrolles.
Vidaillet. B. (in press). A Lacanian tlieory’s contribution to the study of workplace envy. Human
Relations.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). lt’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, I3, 201-244. _
Vecchio, R. P. (1999). Jealousy and envy among health care professionals. In P. LeBlaiice,
M. Peters, A. Btissiiig, & W. Schauetli (Eds.), Organizational psychology and health care
(pp. 121-132). Munich: Verlag. _
Vecchio‘. R. P. (2000). Negative‘ emotion in the workplace: Employee jealousy and envy. Interna-
tional Journal ofStress Management, 7, 161-179.
Vecchio. R. P. (2005) Explorations in employee envy: Feeling envious and feeling envied. Cogni-
tion and Emotion, '19, 69-81. » ~
Vecchio, R. P. (2007). Cinderella and Salieri in the Workplace: The envied and the envier. Manag-
ing Social and Etliical Issuesin Organizations, pgs. 109-134.
Vince, R. (2001). Power and emotion in organizational learning. Human Relations, 54, 1325-1351.
Weiss, H. M., &,Cropanzano, R. _(1996).An affective events approach to job satisfaction.
In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (V01. 18,
pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Westhues, K. (2004). A-(lllll.IZI:Sl7'(I.ll'V€ mobbing at the University of Toronto: The trial, degrada-
_ tion and dismissal ofa professor during the presidency ofJ. Robert S. Pricliard. Queenston,
Ontario, Canada: Edwin Mellen.
Westhues,. K. (2006). The envy of excellence: Administrating mobbing of high achieving profes-
sors. New York: Edwin Mellen.