Ideal or an ordeal for organizations?

Abstract

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated between organizations and particular employees (“i-dealers”). Most prior research has focused on the two parties to the i-deal, but in the current work, we focus on the co-workers of i-dealers who are often affected by the i-deals of others in ways that have additional and sometimes unexpected implications for organizations. We present a theoretically grounded framework that integrates cognitive, affective, and contextual processes to better understand when and why co-workers develop positive, neutral, or negative reactions to such arrangements. We predict that a range of reactions can occur, and may vary in valence (positive, neutral, or no reaction, or negative), degree of activation (active or passive), and target of the reaction (the organization, the i-dealer, or self). The nature of the reaction mirrors the emotions of the co-worker in response to self- and other-oriented cognitive appraisals of the i-deal by the co-worker. The nature of the reaction is also shaped by the consistency of the i-deal with the organization’s norms for differential treatment of employees. In the concluding section, we discuss future extensions and research implications of our model, and a number of potential managerial considerations that derive from our theorizing.

Keywords

emotion idiosyncratic deals social cognition

Idiosyncratic deals, or “i-deals,” are employee–employer negotiated, voluntary, and nonstandard employment arrangements that are made in anticipation of being mutually beneficial to both the employee and the employer (Rousseau, 2005). The widespread appeal of i-deals and of i-deals research can be understood in terms of the benefits they are presumed to offer to the parties involved. I-deals benefit organizations through enhanced attraction, motivation, and retention of talent (Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Empirical evidence confirms that i-deals also benefit the i-deal recipient. I-dealers experience enhanced job satisfaction, voice behavior, proactive behavior, decreased work–family conflict, better person–job fit, and increased organizational commitment (Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010; Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008; Liu, Lee, Hui, Kwan, & Wu, 2013; Ng & Feldman, 2010). Despite these benefits, use of i-deals can sometimes be problematic because by their very nature, i-deals are exceptions or deviations from standard employment arrangements; as such they draw attention, trigger sensemaking among co-workers of the i-dealer, and result in co-worker attitudes and behaviors that can range from positive to negative, from active to passive, and from self- (co-worker) focused to i-dealer- or organization-focused.

Consider the example of Professor Shukla,¹ a full professor who receives a job offer from a renowned university offering him more laboratory space and a lower teaching load than his current school does. When he shares the information about this offer with his dean, several faculty colleagues who are aware of the offer approach the dean, urging her to give Professor Shukla what he wants in order to retain him. They believe that in addition to being a star in the field and a great colleague, there is a high probability that Professor Shukla will ultimately win the Nobel Prize, bringing acclaim and other benefits to the school and by extension, to themselves. In light of the potential benefits from retaining Professor Shukla, some co-workers even offer to share their laboratory space, while others offer to teach the courses he does not want to teach. In contrast, another professor, Dr. De is offered a higher salary and similar perks with another university and approaches his current school for an i-deal as a counteroffer. While one or two of Dr. De’s co-workers perceive that he is perhaps deserving, several others think that he is an average performer at best. Those who were opposed later resent it when Dr. De is granted the i-deal he requested, accepts it, and stays.

As these scenarios illustrate, co-workers can respond to i-deals in a variety of ways. Positive co-worker reactions can benefit the i-dealer, organization, and even co-workers themselves if they lead to adaptive attitudes and behavior, such as improved performance. Conversely, negative co-worker reactions can hinder i-deal implementation, and lead to subtle yet costly outcomes such as co-worker absenteeism, turnover, and low morale (Greenberg, Roberge, Ho, & Rousseau, 2004), and may even lead to overt counterproductive behaviors towards the i-dealer or the organization.

As illustrated in the summary of research on co-worker reactions in Table 1, the most common theoretical lens that has been applied to the study of co-worker reactions to i-deals has been justice theory and its variants (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2004; Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009; Marescaux & De Winne, 2015), which may explain the limited number of outcomes that have been theorized thus far (e.g., fairness judgments and related outcomes such as co-worker acceptance of a colleague’s hypothetical future i-deal, co-workers’ organization citizenship behaviors [OCBs], co-worker’s basis/rule for judging distributive fairness of an i-deal; Huo, Luo, & Tam, 2014; Lai et al., 2009). This sparse research is silent regarding other outcomes and other cognitive and emotional mechanisms that likely predict employee reactions to colleagues’ i-deals, as evidenced by several recent calls by i-deals scholars for such research (Guerrero & Challiol-Jeanblanc, 2016; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016).

Table 1.

Summary of existing research on co-worker reactions to i-deals.

Study and setting		Objective	Theoretical lens	Outcomes/results relevant to study of co-worker reactions
1	Greenberg et al. (2004); conceptual manuscript	Theorize about issues related to fairness and different forms of justice that arise among i-dealer, co-worker (of the i-dealer), and manager.	Organizational justice and fairness	Primary focus is on how the i-dealer and his or her manager can shape the justice perceptions of the co-worker(s).
2	Huo et al. (2014); empirical field study of Chinese employees	Investigate the relationship between i-deals and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of i-dealers and of their co-workers, taking into account several moderators.	Social exchange, impression management, cultural values	Among i-dealers’ co-workers, beliefs about obtaining future i-deals predict co-worker OCB, an effect that is stronger for co-workers with more knowledge of others’ i-deals and low traditionality.
3	Lai et al. (2009); empirical field study of U.S. employees	Examine predictors of co-worker acceptance of another’s hypothetical future i-deal.	Organizational justice, employment relationships (social/economic exchange), social networks	Co-worker acceptance of another’s i-deal is more likely when: i-dealer is a close friend, the co-worker believes that he can also negotiate a similar deal, and the co-worker has a social exchange relationship with the employer. Acceptance is less likely when co-worker has an economic exchange with employer.
4	Marescaux and De Winne (2015); empirical field study of Belgian employees	Examine the basis (equity or need principle) used by co-workers of the i-dealer to judge distributive fairness of that i-deal; examine the role of i-deal content and co-worker’s gender in this judgment.	Distributive justice	Co-worker’s use of equity or need rule varies depending on the content of the i-deal and gender of the co-worker.
5	Ng and Lucianetti (2016); empirical field study of Italian employees	Investigate whether employees’ perceptions of others’ i-deals influence their own perceptions of successful negotiation of i-deals.	Dispositional motivational goals, social exchange, equity theory	Relationship between employee motivational goal(s) and successful negotiation of an i-deal for himself is contingent on his/her perceptions of whether other work colleagues also have negotiated i-deals.

Adams’s (1963, 1965) work on social comparisons, together with other justice-based theorizing (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2004), provides an obvious starting point for thinking about co-worker reactions to i-deals, but a much richer understanding of co-worker reactions is to be gained by considering additional mechanisms. While a given reward comparison (i.e., he or she received an i-deal but I did not) may indeed trigger an immediate, provisional justice-based response, in complex social settings where workers are embedded, interdependent, and have histories and futures together and where reward information has meaning within the broader context (and not just within a dyad), provisional reactions are modulated by other cognitive sensemaking processes.

Drawing from theory and research on social cognition (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), we propose a more fine-grained approach to the study of individual co-worker reactions that complements and extends justice theory predictions by focusing on how cognitive, affective, and contextual mechanisms combine to explain the attitudinal and behavioral variability among co-workers in response to the same i-deal. Our model has particular utility in the context of i-deals, where each co-worker’s individual sensemaking and emotional experience affects his or her attitudes and behaviors. A colleague’s i-deal may be perceived as beneficial by some co-workers. Conversely, some i-deals (e.g., a flexibility i-deal allowing someone to leave early from work) can immediately increase the burden of one or more other co-workers, irrespective of whether they believe the recipient deserved the i-deal. Our model predicts when i-deals can be expected to engender positive or negative (or mixed) co-worker emotional reactions and targeted reciprocating behaviors, beyond what would be expected to result from basic judgments of fairness or unfairness. Further, recognizing the role of context in influencing employee reactions, we discuss how collective sensemaking influences co-workers’ emotional and cognitive processing about another’s i-deal and how organizational norms also shape co-workers’ subsequent observed attitudinal and behavioral reactions. Our model explores why observed attitudes and behaviors may belie how co-workers really feel about the i-deal.

The co-worker-centric theory that we propose advances the literature on i-deals in several ways. First, such a perspective enriches the existing literature by addressing recent calls by i-deals researchers for work on co-workers’ emotional reactions and underlying mechanisms (Guerrero & Challiol-Jeanblanc, 2016; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016) and by paying attention to the spectrum of emotions and reactions that accompany differing perceptions of justice (e.g., Colquitt, Rodell, Long, & Halvorsen-Ganepola, 2015; Colquitt et al., 2013).

Second, our theorizing also offers an enhanced perspective on the cognitive dimensions of co-worker reactions. We integrate and extend existing work by offering a more general framework that includes a broader set of self- and other-oriented i-deal-related cognitions and considers how collective sensemaking may also affect the co-worker’s individual-level sensemaking processes. Such an approach offers insights into why a “one-size-fits-all,” justice-focused approach might not always be the best to manage co-workers.

Third, our theorizing, grounded in a nuanced view of cognitive and emotional responding, allows us to predict a wide array of possible co-worker reactions, ranging from positive to negative. This stands in contrast to much of the prior work which has implicitly assumed that co-workers (i.e., on average) react negatively to i-deals of others unless the i-dealer and manager actively manage justice perceptions (Greenberg et al., 2004).

While comprehensive in many ways, our theorizing is bounded by our framing choices and assumptions. By utilizing an overarching framework that primarily focuses on intraindividual social cognition and resulting expression of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, we focus on co-workers’ proximal reactions to i-deals as episodic responses. We devote less attention to the role of co-worker dispositions in predicting general reaction tendencies over time.

In what follows, we present a comprehensive theoretical model of co-worker reactions to i-deals. First, we elucidate how, aided by the collective sensemaking within the workgroup, the co-worker’s other-oriented and self-oriented cognitions (i.e., his/her assessments of the i-dealer’s deservingness and of the implications of the i-deal for him/herself in the form of i-deal appraisal) co-occur and combine to influence that co-worker’s experienced emotions upon learning of another’s i-deal. These emotions, arising as they do in a social comparison context (Smith, 2000), may range from indifference to malicious envy, resentment, anger, benign envy, admiration, gratitude, guilt, or even ambivalent (i.e., mixed) feelings. Next we consider how organizational contextual norms influence the manifestation of these emotional experiences in different attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. While cognitions and emotions determine the valence (positive or negative) of these outcomes, we explain how organizational context, specifically the degree to which the i-deal is consistent with organizational norms, affects whether the target of these outcomes is the self (co-worker), the i-dealer, or the organization, and whether outcomes are active or passive. Finally, we highlight the theoretical and practical implications of this cognitive-affective-behavioral framework for future research and for managerial practice.

Predicting co-worker reactions to i-deals

Overview

I-deals refer to the jointly negotiated, voluntary arrangements between an employee and an employer through which resources are offered to select individual(s) to reward, motivate, or retain them, or in rare cases, to improve their performance (Belser, 2011; Nebenzahl, 2011; Rousseau, 2005). I-deals differ from other employee initiatives and from arrangements such as managerial preferential treatment/favoritism or unauthorized taking by an employee (misrepresentation and theft) because they have the mutual interest of the organization and employee at their core (Rousseau, 2004). I-deals can range in scope from a small characteristic of one’s work to an entire employment relationship. These arrangements can differ in terms of the kind of resource exchanged (e.g., financial i-deals, flexibility i-deals, developmental i-deals, or work responsibility i-deals) and may be negotiated at various times: ex ante i-deals are negotiated before someone is hired and ex post i-deals are negotiated post-hire (Rousseau, 2005).

Our theoretical model (depicted in Figure 1) takes the point of view of and predicts the sense-making processes of an individual co-worker who becomes aware of a work colleague’s i-deal. Insights from social cognition research inform our theorizing about the ultimate attitudes and behaviors of individual co-workers of an i-dealer and about why those reactions can vary among an i-dealer’s colleagues.

Figure 1.

I-deals and co-worker reactions: A model of co-worker cognition, emotion, and organizational norms.

The entry point in Figure 1 occurs when a co-worker becomes aware of another’s i-deal and begins to react to it, with both emotional and cognitive processing ensuing (depicted as “co-worker emotion” and “co-worker cognition”). The exact nature and valence of the emotional response is contingent on how the co-worker cognitively makes sense of the other person (i.e., his/her deservingness of the i-deal) as well as the implications of that i-deal for self (co-worker), and is also informed by the collective sensemaking of others in the surrounding workgroup. We elaborate on these contingencies in several propositions (and in Figure 2). In organizational settings, work-relevant attitudes and behaviors are of prime interest, and thus a key contribution of our model lies in the final relationships depicted in Figure 1: linkage of co-worker experienced emotions to outwardly expressed reactions varying in terms of activation level and target of the attitude/behavior, and contingent upon whether the i-deal is consistent with the organization’s norms for differential treatment of workers.

Figure 2.

Co-worker self- and other-oriented cognition and predicted emotions in response to a colleague’s i-deal.

Triggering event in context: Co-worker’s awareness of i-deals with collective sensemaking as background context

Social context builds an employee’s experience at work (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) and events occurring within that context trigger employee sensemaking (Louis, 1980) and social comparison processes. The perceived existence of an i-deal can act as a contextual signal to the co-worker that the employer values its employees differently by offering special resources. Both the perceived existence and content of i-deals signal social importance related to another employee’s status, power, or value to the organization, particularly when these deals are rare and based on performance or on an employee’s criticality to the organization. As social comparison can inflict social and psychological costs and lead to pleasure or pain (Brickman & Bulman, 1977), a variety of important outcomes can ensue.

If the co-worker is involved in the i-deal negotiation process or learns about it when the i-deal negotiation is initiated (e.g., in cases when the employer or manager is proactive in communicating about i-deals in the organization), that individual may have more accurate, complete, and timely information to which to react. But whether complete or accurate, or not, employees nonetheless react to perceptions about the existence and content of i-deals, based on what they think they know. Secrecy about i-deals, just like pay secrecy, can result in employees overestimating their deprivation when engaging in social comparison (Bamberger & Belogolovsky, 2017) about i-deals due to lack of correct information. In addition, other factors, such as whether the i-deal is negotiated ex ante or ex post will also potentially influence how co-worker becomes aware of the i-deal. Since ex ante i-deals are often granted based on the labor market value of the i-dealer (Rousseau, 2005) and may be considered more acceptable when negotiated during job offer, a co-worker may have more information about these i-deals as compared to later, ex post i-deals where the co-worker might have no or limited information about the basis upon which the i-deal was granted.

As we will elaborate further in what follows, co-workers engage in sensemaking about the implications of the other’s i-deal for themselves personally (“appraisal”), and also form judgments about the legitimacy of the i-deal itself, based on perceptions of deservingness of the i-dealer. We argue (and develop propositions detailed in Figure 2) that the various combinations of these cognitions influence the emotions experienced by a co-worker in response to awareness of another’s i-deal. But first, it is important to acknowledge that this individual-level cognitive and emotional sensemaking does not occur in isolation, but rather within the context of, and informed by, the workgroup.

When it comes to meaning-making, individuals rely not only on their own experiences but also on the shared beliefs and experiences of others (Bruner, 1990; Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010). As a result, co-workers’ individual-level sensemaking about others’ i-deals is influenced by collective sensemaking (Weick, 1995), where individuals negotiate, interpret, and mutually cogenerate the meaning of what they experience (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Stories are shared by people as one such tool for meaning-making (Zilber, 2007), and consistent with recent research on denied promotions and storytelling (Vough & Caza, 2017), we argue that when it comes to i-deals the focal co-worker and others (peer employees and managers) can narrate different stories that will influence a focal co-worker’s sensemaking process following awareness of the i-deal.

Both managers’ and peers’ stories can be influential in how employees construct meaning (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Some managers might be more forthcoming about sharing information about the granting of an i-deal (before or immediately after it is granted) while others might paint a more fragmented, restricted, or minimal picture for various reasons such that i-deal information is incomplete, inaccurate, nor given at the right time. For example, if an i-deal was granted due to health issues, a manager might be hesitant to discuss the reasoning behind it. Or if the manager “inherited” the i-deal from a former manager he might have limited information himself, leading to a more fragmented account of the justification for the i-deal. Both managers and peers can share organizational stories related to i-deals or other forms of exceptions or accommodations, including past practice regarding scope and types of i-deals (if any) that have been granted, the reasoning behind them, and the outcomes associated with them. Organizational stories will be informed by organizational norms related to i-deals and other exceptions. Organizational stories are more general and act as cognitive schemas (Fiske & Linville, 1980; Vough & Caza, 2017) whereas peers’ stories about i-deals are more specific, such as whether they were denied i-deals, what kinds of strategies they formulated to attain i-deals, etc.

Further, peers can also provide information about the history of i-deal requests by the i-dealer (assuming the focal co-worker is not aware of that). For example, an i-dealer with multiple i-deals in the past might elicit varied reactions from his or her peers (Rousseau et al., 2006). He or she can be seen as a manipulator, good negotiator, or someone genuinely worthy of all the i-deals that have been granted.

This vicarious information about prior i-deals helps the focal co-worker contextualize and frame a current i-deal. While the focal actor may also have his or her own personal story that elicits an emotional response, such as a history of his/her own denied i-deal requests, those emotional reactions may either be validated or tempered (i.e., called into question) in the context of others’ stories. As in the case of other uncertain situations (e.g., denied promotions; Vough & Caza, 2017), through the process of conversing with others, an employee can gain informational and social support in the form of knowledge or psychological resources that further influence the emotional reactions to another’s i-deal.

In addition to affecting a focal co-worker’s emotional reactions, collective sensemaking processes can also influence perceptions of i-dealer deservingness and his/her appraisal of that i-deal’s implications for self, two important cognitions we discuss in depth later. For example, peers or managers can provide information that increases the degree to which the i-dealer is seen as deserving or, conversely, downplays the negative implications an i-deal has for the co-worker.

It is difficult to precisely predict the magnitude and direction of the effect of collective sensemaking on a given co-worker’s reactions to another’s i-deal, as it is contingent upon the workgroup’s experiences and storytelling combined with the co-worker’s interpretation of these stories. Nonetheless, these arguments do suggest the following general principle:

Postulate: A co-worker’s emotional and cognitive reactions upon learning of a colleague’s i-deal will be informed by and contingent upon the collective sensemaking of others in his or her workgroup.

Having stipulated the workgroup as an important source of contextual influence for meaning-making, we return our focus to the level of the individual co-worker who is working through how to react to another’s i-deal. More specifically, we consider how his or her cognitions shape emotional reactions which then manifest in attitudinal and behavioral responses.

Co-worker self- and other-oriented cognitions: I-deal appraisal and deservingness judgments

Taking into account both social information (i.e., collective sensemaking) and their own personal perceptions, individuals routinely engage in appraisal of events in their environment to determine implications of those events for the self (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). Lazarus (1991) contends that the overall appraisal consists of primary and secondary appraisal. Primary or automatic appraisal of the events consists of an individual assessing whether the event is positive or negative and whether it will impact the goals of the individual (Lazarus, 1991; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). During secondary appraisal, individuals think of the coping options and prospects as well as to whom to assign the blame or credit (Lazarus, 1991, p. 87).

Positively appraising the i-deal implies that, overall, a co-worker views a colleague’s i-deal as a means of potential gain (e.g., if it opens the possibility for the co-worker to secure such arrangements in the future, if it brings recognition because of affiliation with the i-dealer, or if it retains the i-dealer and this is beneficial for the co-worker). An i-deal may be appraised negatively if it burdens the co-worker or deprives him of valuable resources, connections, and opportunities, or entails social costs. If the i-deal is not seen as affecting the co-worker in any significant way, the co-worker will appraise it as neutral.

In addition to appraisal, which is self-focused, co-workers also engage in other-oriented judgments about the i-dealer’s deservingness of the i-deal. Research on justice, which has traditionally focused on an employee’s judgments of how fair one’s own outcomes are or how fairly he or she is treated by organizational agents (Whitman, Caleo, Carpenter, Horner, & Bernerth, 2012), has been extended to encompass third party fairness judgments about the outcomes and treatment of other employees or stakeholders, such as customers (Blader, Wiesenfeld, Fortin, & Wheeler-Smith, 2013; Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2015; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). Following Blader et al.’s (2013) and Mitchell et al.’s (2015) work on third parties’ perceptions of others’ treatment, we contend that in the context of i-deals, co-workers (as third parties) will observe and evaluate the i-dealer’s deservingness of special treatment.

Deservingness refers to “judgments that relate to outcomes that are earned or achieved as products of a person’s actions” (Feather, 2008, p. 1231). Although there can be many variables influencing perceptions of an i-dealer’s deservingness, since attracting, motivating, and retaining high performers is often the espoused reason for granting an i-deal (Rousseau, 2005), we will use i-dealer performance for purposes of illustration. Depending on their knowledge and interaction with the i-dealer, some co-workers might view the i-dealer as a high performer and thus deserving, while others might attribute the i-dealer’s performance to luck or political skill. Co-workers may also formulate deservingness perceptions based on different facets or weighting of performance. Some may focus on in-role task performance (Werner, 1994) while others focus more on discretionary performance, such as helping behaviors (or lack thereof; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). These diverse perceptions can contribute to differing deservingness judgments and in turn, to differing co-worker reactions.

I-deal properties (i.e., i-deal content) shape co-worker judgments of i-dealer deservingness and/or appraisal for self. For example, i-deals involving timing of work tasks (e.g., flexibility i-deals) are more visible to others than financial i-deals. The latter may be subject to pay secrecy (Colella, Paetzold, Zardkoohi, & Wesson, 2007) or could be less visible because the i-dealer does not discuss them. Co-worker perceptions can be influenced by the availability heuristic (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973), such that easy and frequent observability may cause co-workers to perceive more significant implications for themselves from highly visible i-deals than is the case with less visible i-deals of others. If an i-deal is distinctive or rare in a certain context, it will tend to be salient (Fiske, 1980; Fiske & Taylor, 1991), or seen as “special,” and thus subject to heightened scrutiny during the evaluation process.

A co-worker’s own characteristics and concerns can also influence that individual’s appraisal and deservingness judgments. For example, a co-worker who is central in a network of relationships may have more information (Shah, 1998) that impacts his or her cognitive appraisal process. Similarly, research on homophily or the preference for interacting with similar others (e.g., Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998) has shown that similar others use their group as a means for identification and social interaction. A friend or similar other could be seen as more deserving of an i-deal via well-known in-group processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Past research on co-worker acceptance of prospective or hypothetical i-deals has shown that co-workers are more accepting of a friend’s i-deal (Lai et al., 2009). One reason for these findings can be rooted in psychological closeness theory, which posits that one’s sense of self can be expanded to include others with whom one shares a sense of closeness (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). Given that individuals tend to view themselves more favorably than what is objectively true (Greenwald, 1980; Taylor & Brown, 1988), a co-worker would tend to inflate his/her own deservingness of an i-deal, and correspondingly, due to psychological closeness with i-dealer as a friend and the communal nature of close relationships (Clark & Mills, 1979), would also tend to see the friend as highly deserving of an i-deal. Even if a friend’s i-deal has some negative implications for self, these implications may be downplayed or offset in light of the shared communal identity with the i-dealer.

A co-worker’s own unmet need, such as the situation where a co-worker might wish to negotiate a similar arrangement, or a situation where she was denied a similar i-deal in the past, may also affect how the co-worker processes information about the colleague’s i-deal. Personal relevance of the i-deal, either due to some unmet need or due to the content of the i-deal, will influence the cognitive resources that the co-worker deploys to evaluate an i-deal (Taylor & Fiske, 1978) such that co-workers collect more of and become critical consumers of a colleague’s i-deal-related information; they will detect any discrepancies, be harsher judges of deservingness, and/or may be more sensitive to an i-deal’s implications for self.

Skarlicki, O’Reilly, and Kulik (2015) have argued that one’s self-interest and moral (i.e., other-oriented) motives can be complementary and work simultaneously in influencing his or her reactions to how another person is treated. We contend that these self- and other-oriented cognitions can also be in conflict (e.g., the co-worker benefits from the i-deal of a colleague who is low in deservingness). In the next section (and in Figure 2) we consider specifically how, upon becoming aware of an i-deal, co-worker’s appraisal and deservingness judgments jointly shape the emotion experienced, which in turn elicits attitudinal and behavioral reactions.

Co-worker cognitions shape the nature of emotional reactions to an i-deal

Emotions are “discrete, innate, functional, biosocial action and expression system[s],” (Fischer, Shaver, & Carnochan, 1990, p. 84) that result due to one’s assessment of events as either advancing or hindering one’s goals. Researchers have theorized and found evidence for a variety of relationships between emotion and cognition (e.g., Lazarus, 1982; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Zajonc, 1984; for a comprehensive review, see Elfenbein, 2007). Given that the focus of our research is on explicating reactions that are informed by both affective reactions and cognitive appraisal and judgment of others’ i-deals, our theoretical model focuses on emotional experience in response to learning of the i-deal of another, as shaped by (moderated by) the co-worker’s cognitive sensemaking about the situation (i.e., appraisal and deservingness judgements). In the current work we focus on a range of co-workers’ common other-focused emotions relevant to and meaningful in a social context; these include malicious envy, resentment, anger, benign envy, admiration, gratitude, guilt, indifference, and ambivalent feelings (i.e., simultaneous experienced emotions of opposite valence).

Consistent with the rationale of affective events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), according to which “affective events” at the workplace trigger feelings that in turn influence attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, we contend that the relationship between awareness of a colleague’s i-deal and the emotion(s) experienced by the co-worker in response is influenced by the co-worker’s cognitive assessment of both (a) the deservingness of the i-dealer and (b) the appraisal of the i-deal in terms of it being positive, negative, or neutral for self (co-worker). To illustrate this, we develop propositions about how self- and other-focused cognitions combine and interact to influence the nature of a co-worker’s emotion(s) (Figure 2).

Co-worker perceptions of high i-dealer deservingness with positive appraisal of i-deal for self

In some scenarios the co-worker can view the resources, opportunities, connections, or association offered by the a colleague’s i-deal as facilitating one’s own goals (i.e., have a positive appraisal), such that what is good for the i-dealer is good for the co-worker (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). For example, the i-dealer might be granted a task i-deal which also gives the co-worker a chance to acquire some useful skills. Or if the i-dealer works from home, this allows an in-the-office co-worker to be the prime contact for a customer. Or sometimes, association with a well-respected i-dealer in the organization can serve to the co-worker’s advantage. In the example of Professor Shukla given earlier, some co-workers who believed that he had the potential to win the Nobel Prize anticipated the future benefits to the school and to themselves and thus positively appraised the i-deal, even after taking into account the sacrifices they (voluntarily) made for the i-deal. However, if there had been no such Nobel Prize potential or if the school had forcefully imposed undesirable constraints upon them, their appraisals of Professor Shukla’s i-deal would have likely been more negative.

When the i-dealer is perceived as high in deservingness, and the i-deal is positively appraised, the co-worker will experience feelings of delightful approval or admiration (van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011), and/or gratitude for the benefits that the other’s i-deal brings to himself. Gratitude is viewed as an empathic emotion (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994) marked by recognition and appreciation (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). It is defined as “the willingness to recognize the unearned increments of value in one’s experience” (Bertocci & Millard, 1963, p. 389), and “an estimate of gain coupled with the judgment that someone else is responsible for that gain” (Solomon, 1977, p. 316). Taken together, these arguments lead us to expect that:

Proposition 1: A co-worker’s perceptions of high i-dealer deservingness and positive appraisal of i-deal for self will increase the likelihood of feelings of admiration and/or gratitude in response to learning of a colleague’s i-deal.

Co-worker perceptions of high i-dealer deservingness with neutral appraisal of i-deal for self

When the i-deal does not affect the co-worker in any particularly positive or negative way, perhaps because the i-dealer and co-worker interact infrequently or there is an abundance of resources in the work group, or no goal frustration is involved to give rise to a negative reaction (Lazarus, 1991), a neutral appraisal is likely. A neutral appraisal would, all else being equal, likely be associated with emotional indifference (i.e., lack of differentiated or strong emotion in either direction). But depending on the nature of the co-worker’s judgment regarding i-dealer deservingness, the co-worker’s affective reaction can swing from indifference to another emotion, such as admiration or envy, or both. While discussing admiration and envy, Miceli and Castelfranchi (2007, p. 471) argued that “If achieving this goal (or a superordinate one) and possessing the means for accomplishing it are not self-definitional, admiration can occur without suffering, thus keeping itself at a safer distance from envy.” Thus self is less involved in a situation where admiration arises. Admiration is a pleasant feeling that does not motivate any action tendency such as asking for an i-deal to level up (van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2012). When the i-dealer is deserving and the co-worker is not affected by the i-deal in any way, the co-worker will tend to find the i-dealer’s act of securing an i-deal worthy of praise.

Some co-workers who admire the i-dealer may find themselves, in learning about the i-deal, also learning about something they do not have, and develop a desire to have it. The i-deal can generate a new self-set goal for the co-worker to aspire to (Locke & Latham, 1990). This experience is typically accompanied by other-oriented emotion of envy. In describing envy broadly, Parrott and Smith argue that (1993, p. 906), “envy occurs when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possession, and either desires it or wishes that the other lacks it.” We argue that when the i-dealer is perceived as deserving, the kind of envy that the co-worker experiences will be relatively innocuous benign envy where the wish for the other person to not have the desired object or attribute does not arise. Benign envy reflects the sentiment of “I wish I had what you have,” (Bedeian, 1995, p. 51). Benign envy is accompanied by a behavioral inclination to emulate the envied person with a goal to “level up.” These two emotions of admiration and benign envy may co-occur, giving rise to a situation of emotional ambivalence. In such a scenario, slightly negative feelings of benign envy accompany positive feelings of admiration for the i-dealer.

Proposition 2: A co-worker’s perceptions of high i-dealer deservingness and neutral appraisal of i-deal for self will increase the likelihood of a co-worker’s feelings of admiration upon learning of a colleague’s i-deal, feelings which may also be accompanied by benign envy if the i-deal triggers a self-oriented aspirational goal in the co-worker.

Co-worker perceptions of high i-dealer deservingness with negative appraisal of i-deal for self

A co-worker may perceive the i-deal as having negative implications for self because the i-deal threatens the co-worker’s goal attainment or makes the co-worker feel uncomfortable or devalued in some way (e.g., if s/he had been denied an i-deal which could be interpreted as a signal of the co-worker’s low worth to the organization). This could also be because the i-deal burdens or diminishes opportunities for the co-worker, signaling that the organization did not take his or her needs into account before granting the i-deal. An example could be a co-worker not receiving an opportunity to be a part of a training program because the group resources were used to address the i-dealer’s developmental need.

In situations where the i-dealer is perceived as high in deservingness, but the i-deal has negative implications for co-worker (self), it is likely that the co-worker’s negative emotional reaction will be one of anger or resentment towards the organization that granted the burdensome i-deal. Anger is “an emotional state that may include feelings ranging from mild irritation to intense rage” (Gibson, Schweitzer, Callister, & Gray, 2009, p. 238), whereas according to Folger (1987, p. 207) “resentment is an emotion with an outwardly directed target, an implicit accusation of wrongdoing.” Ben-Ze’ev (2002) has further differentiated between anger and resentment, noting that anger is directed at novel actions whereas resentment is more general and is more of an intense and long-lasting attitude. Resentment may be more likely in cases where the co-worker’s perceptions are shaped by more than just the current i-deal of a colleague, such as when there is a “history” or cumulative pattern of which the focal i-deal is a part. For example, resentment (rather than simple anger) might arise when the focal co-worker has been repeatedly denied an i-deal for self. Or, resentment might be experienced as a result of the collective sensemaking process, when a co-worker realizes that others have been denied an i-deal whereas the i-dealer as an exception was successful in securing such an arrangement. In comparison to resentment, anger is marked by a sudden urge to attack (Ben-Ze’ev, 2002). Thus anger is more likely in episodic i-deal scenarios where the i-deal has negative implications for the co-worker but does not invoke a sense of being part of a long and repeated pattern.

Proposition 3: A co-worker’s perceptions of high i-dealer deservingness and negative appraisal of i-deal for self will increase the likelihood of anger or resentment toward the organization in response to learning of a colleague’s i-deal.

Co-worker perceptions of low i-dealer deservingness with positive appraisal of i-deal for self

A co-worker’s response can vacillate between differently valenced emotions when the i-dealer is perceived as low in deservingness but the i-deal is positively appraised for self. A colleague’s i-deal can be beneficial to the co-worker, resulting in the co-worker processing the i-deal information in a self-serving fashion, and balancing, but not necessarily eliminating, the co-worker’s otherwise negative reaction to the lack of i-dealer deservingness. Goals can make individuals selectively pay attention to their environments (Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010). Thus if the i-deal is appraised positively by the co-worker, the co-worker may be torn between focusing on the i-dealer’s lack of merit versus his or her own personal benefits. Situations or rules that maximize one’s rewards are seen as more fair as compared to ones that do not (Friedland, Thibaut, & Walker, 1973; Leventhal, 1976). For these reasons, low deservingness of the i-dealer in a situation that benefits the co-worker might create confusion and engender ambivalent feelings (Fong, 2006; Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001). We theorize that the co-worker will experience feelings of both guilt and gratitude. Guilt is defined as a private feeling between self and one’s conscience, experienced at the breach of a personal moral standard or in the face of a transgression, accompanied by a perception that one has done something “bad” (Tangney, 1990, p. 103). Guilt and gratitude can be driven by the co-worker appreciating the i-deal’s resultant benefits, yet at the same time acknowledging that the i-dealer is not deserving.

Proposition 4: A co-worker’s perceptions of low i-dealer deservingness and positive appraisal of i-deal for self will increase the likelihood of ambivalent feelings of gratitude and guilt in response to learning of a co-worker’s i-deal.

Co-worker perceptions of low i-dealer deservingness with neutral appraisal of i-deal for self

Even though the i-deal might not be instrumental in either achieving co-worker’s goals or hindering them (i.e., neutral appraisal of i-deal for self), if it is perceived to be undeserved, it can raise fairness, moral, or other questions and/or increase uncertainty. For example, the i-dealer could have taken credit for someone’s work and thus not be responsible for task performance or the i-dealer could have deprived other group members of valuable resources, yet the organization granted him an i-deal. Research confirms that individuals can react to the fair/unfair treatment of others even when they are not directly impacted (Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). In such a situation where it is perceived that someone undeserving gets an i-deal, negative feelings such as anger or resentment directed toward the i-dealer and possibly toward the organization will likely arise. Resentment is caused by perceived moral transgression (Ben-Ze’ev, 1990) and perceptions of unfair treatment. We argue that in this scenario with neutral appraisal of i-deal for self, an employee can experience anger or resentment. These arguments lead us to propose:

Proposition 5: A co-worker’s perceptions of low i-dealer deservingness and neutral appraisal of i-deal for self will increase the likelihood of a co-worker’s feelings of anger or resentment toward the i-dealer, or toward both i-dealer and organization, in response to learning of a colleague’s i-deal.

Co-worker perceptions of low i-dealer deservingness with negative appraisal of i-deal for self

If the i-dealer is perceived as low in deservingness by a co-worker who is also personally disadvantaged by the i-deal, other-directed feelings of malicious envy are likely. Malicious envy is marked by hostility, resentment, or anger as well as a sense of injustice (Bedeian, 1995; Parrott & Smith, 1993; R. H. Smith, 1991; R. H. Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994). Malicious envy is directed towards someone who possesses what the envious person desires but does not have (Parrot & Smith, 1993; R. H. Smith et al., 1994). Stronger than benign envy which is aspirational in nature (Parrott, 1991; R. H. Smith, 1991), malicious envy reflects feelings like “I wish you did not have what you have” (Bedeian, 1995, p. 51). Malicious envy gives rise to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2007). Crusius and Lange (2014) found evidence that when experiencing malicious envy, one’s attention is more directed towards the advantaged other rather than the envied object. In consumer research, malicious envy has also been associated with the devaluating of the envied object (van de Ven et al., 2011) with the focus mainly being the envied person.

Proposition 6: A co-worker’s perceptions of low i-dealer deservingness and negative appraisal of i-deal for self will increase the likelihood of malicious envy in response to learning of a colleague’s i-deal.

Co-workers’ attitudinal and behavioral reactions in the context of organizational norms

Having considered how cognitive appraisals shape the co-worker’s emotional responses to i-deals, we refer again to our model (Figure 1) to understand and predict the actual manifestation of these experienced emotions in co-worker attitudes and behaviors (the right-hand portion of Figure 1). Given that in our model emotions are key drivers of these outcomes, we leverage and extend the conceptual logic of the circumplex model of affect (Russell, 1980) as an organizing scheme for these outcomes and to categorize them along three dimensions: valence (positive/negative), activation (passive/active), and target (self, i-dealer, or the organization). As emotions give rise to corresponding action tendencies, we expect that emotions will tend to be related to similarly valenced attitudes and behaviors. We also expect that these attitudes and behaviors will vary in terms of being active or passive and in terms of their target (self, the i-dealer, the organization), contingent on organizational norms that we will discuss shortly.

Positive reactions are co-worker responses directed at benefitting the target. In contrast, negative reactions are responses that harm or may harm the target. Activation describes whether a co-worker’s attitudes and behaviors manifest themselves in an active or passive form. Active reactions are confrontational, direct, and overt in which an individual is more visibly engaged, relative to passive reactions, which are covert, indirect, and can be avoidant (Ayduk, May, Downey, & Higgins, 2003; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). We believe that both active and passive reactions deserve attention because over a period of time even passive reactions can strongly impact important employee outcomes like task performance and turnover. In terms of targets, co-workers may react in ways that affect themselves personally (i.e., targeting self), or their reactions may also be directed outwardly, toward the i-dealer and/or the organization in general. In what follows, we describe examples of behaviors in each of these categories.

Positive, active reaction targeted at self, the i-dealer, or the organization

Some co-workers will engage in active self-directed behaviors such as self-promotion, increased job performance, or self-improvement. Other positive active behaviors may be directed towards the i-dealer, such as facilitating i-deal implementation by helping, cooperating, supporting, or even defending the i-deal, as in the example of Professor Shukla. These positive deviant behaviors can also take the form of extrarole behaviors directed at the organization (van Dyne et al., 1995).

Positive, passive reaction targeted at self, the i-dealer, or the organization

Positive yet passive responses can take the form of introspection, self-awareness, and increased motivation in the co-worker. A passive positive reaction can also be manifested towards the i-dealer in the form of enhanced feelings of respect, courtesy, and trust by the co-worker. A co-worker can also develop attitudes such as enhanced organizational commitment or perceptions of organizational membership (Masterson & Stamper, 2003), due to a colleague’s i-deal.

Negative, active reaction targeted at self, the i-dealer, or the organization

Some co-workers can self-denigrate, lower their job performance, or display withdrawal. They might leave the organization or display counterproductive or negative deviant behaviors that violate organizational norms and threaten the well-being of the organization, its members, or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Negative deviance can take the form of interpersonal deviance such as violence, and gossip (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) directed towards the i-dealer. A co-worker can also negatively react to the i-deal by hindering i-deal implementation. These behaviors can also be directed at the organization in the form of working slower, intentional absenteeism, or stealing or damaging organizational property.

Negative, passive reaction targeted at self, the i-dealer, or the organization

As a result of coping with a colleague’s i-deal that is interpreted as somehow reflecting negatively on self, a co-worker can experience fatigue, anxiety, and loss of focus. Co-workers can also react passively by avoiding or ignoring the i-dealer, or even ostracizing him (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2013). Negative passive behaviors towards the organization can take the form of procrastination, neglect, disengagement, or detachment from the organization.

No reaction

A co-worker can also show no reaction to the i-deal, neither facilitating its implementation nor hindering it. This stance is most likely in cases when the i-deal is so small in magnitude that it fails to draw any attention and thus elicits no reaction. The i-deal may also not trigger any response due to no or low cognition and/or extremely mild emotions involved.

Organizational norms shape attitudinal/behavioral reactions

In organizational settings, the degree to which individuals act on or express felt emotions, and in what way, is strongly influenced by the organizational context (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014). Organizational culture, constituting normative beliefs and behavioral expectations (Cooke & Szumal, 1993), is a prominent contextual variable that affects how employees actually behave, as cultural norms signal what is socially desired and acceptable. Among other things, cultural norms signal the likely social consequences of expressing and suppressing emotions (Frijda & Mesquita, 1994) in behavioral responses to affective events of different kinds. For example, in an organization where norms like “the customer is king” signal the desired behaviors, it may be acceptable to retaliate or react angrily in response to an insult from a colleague, but not in response to the same behavior by a client, giving rise to emotional labor or expressing only socially accepted emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Or in an organization where concerns for “face” shape behavioral norms, it may be inappropriate in open staff meetings to single out someone on good news, or to openly criticize someone in response to bad news (Kim & Nam, 1998).

Earlier we discussed organizational norms as one of several aspects of collective sensemaking that shapes co-worker cognitive and emotional reactions. In this portion of our model, we expect that organizational norms regarding the acceptability and legitimacy of differential treatment of employees will influence how individual co-workers’ cognitions and emotions about another’s i-deal actually manifest in attitudinal and behavioral reactions. Organizations vary in the extent to which they accept or promote making adjustments in standard processes or in the distribution of organizational resources in order to help, support, motivate, or retain particular employees. Some organizations have strong norms about treating all employees the same and favoring minimal differentiation. However, in other organizations the cultural norms are often accepting or even encouraging of differentiation among employees, although organizations (or even different groups within the same organization) differ in terms of what are considered legitimate/acceptable bases for differentiation (e.g., politics/connections, performance, need). An organization with a prime focus on performance might make exceptions only for the high performers. However, another organization valuing employee development might grant i-deals to “problem employees” (Nebenzahl, 2011). Still other organizations are sensitive to the needs of older workers (Bal, De Jong, Jansen, & Bakker, 2012), or to family needs (e.g., caring for dependents like aging parents), or to needs of a diverse workforce (Ryan & Wessel, 2015), viewing these needs as normatively acceptable reasons for offering i-deals.

We contend that in general, the more consistent the i-deal is perceived to be with the organization’s norms for differentiation, the more likely it is that co-workers with positive emotional reactions will express them in active and other-focused attitudes and behaviors (e.g., targeting the i-dealer or organization), and that co-workers with negative emotional reactions will respond with more muted attitudes and behaviors (e.g., they will be more self-focused and any co-worker- or organization-targeted responses will be more passive.) Conversely, the more inconsistent the i-deal with organizational differentiation norms, the more that co-workers’ negative reactions will manifest themselves in active ways toward i-dealers and the organization, with co-workers’ positive reactions more muted in this context (i.e., more self-focused and passive toward others). The pattern of contingent reactions is discussed more specifically next.

Consider the example of Dr. De’s school where traditionally only high performers get i-deals, and Dr. De is an average (at best) performer. Within this organizational setting, because this i-deal violates general social expectations, Dr. De’s colleagues experiencing negative emotions will be more emboldened to react openly/actively without as much fear, and may even expect to have the support of others who also presumably see this as a norm violation. Consequently, these co-workers will be more likely to display active reactions (e.g., exit, counterproductive behavior, or withdrawal) towards one or more targets (i.e., the i-dealer and/or the organization and/or self).

However if there is no cognitive dissonance, such that the basis for granting the i-deal is consistent with the organization’s espoused norms for differential treatment of employees, the co-worker would be expected to exhibit different reactions. Based on his or her private cognitions regarding appraisal and deservingness, the co-worker may still experience negative emotions such as envy or resentment, but they are less likely to be manifested in overt negative attitudes and behaviors towards others. In such a scenario, the negative reactions may manifest as internally directed towards self (e.g., loss of focus or fatigue) or as more passively than actively expressed towards the i-dealer or the organization (e.g., disengagement, avoiding the i-dealer).

If a co-worker experiences positive emotions due to his or her personal cognitive appraisal of a colleague’s i-deal (e.g., an ally of Dr. De’s thinks he is deserving because he is a close friend), but then also sees that the i-deal deviates from the organizational norm(s) for differential treatment of employees (e.g., that Dr. De is not a top performer), he or she could be expected to be less likely to actively display positive reactions towards the i-dealer and/or the organization. Withholding these active positive reactions is seen as necessary to avoid social sanctions that might arise if others see the co-worker as approving of the non-normative i-deal. Instead, co-worker positive reactions will tend to be less overt (i.e., relatively passive, such as having respect for Dr. De and/or as self-directed, such as feeling motivated to emulate Dr. De). However, if the co-worker perceives that there is consistency between the granted i-deal and the organizational espoused norms for differential treatment (as was the case for most colleagues of Professor Shukla), he or she will feel psychologically safer to actively react in a positive way towards the organization and/or i-dealer and/or self. Correspondingly we propose that:

Proposition 7: If the co-worker perceives the i-deal as inconsistent with the organization’s norms for differential treatment of employees, (a) his or her negative emotions will be expressed as active negative reactions directed towards the organization, the i-dealer, and/or self and (b) his or her positive emotions will be expressed as passive positive reactions directed towards the organization and/or the i-dealer, and as active or passive reactions towards self.

Proposition 8: If the co-worker perceives the i-deal as consistent with the organization’s norms for differential treatment of employees, (a) his or her negative emotions will be expressed as passive negative reactions directed towards the organization and/or the i-dealer, and as active or passive reactions towards self and (b) his or her positive emotions will be expressed as active positive reactions directed towards the organization, the i-dealer, and/or self.

In scenarios where the co-worker responds to an i-deal with ambivalent feelings such as admiration and envy, or gratitude and guilt, the moderating effect of perceptions of i-deal consistency with organizational norms for differentiation may be quite complex and outcomes difficult to predict. One issue with ambivalent feelings that a co-worker might hold in response to an i-deal is that it is difficult to predict what the valence of the ensuing behavior will be, much less the strength and target of that behavior. Emotional complexity has been associated with outcomes ranging from cognitive rigidity (Pratt & Doucet, 2000) to vacillation/indecisiveness to increased cognitive flexibility (Fong, 2006; Rothman & Melwani, 2017). The intraindividual dissonance often associated with ambivalent feelings (van Harreveld, van der Pligt, & Yael, 2009) can make co-workers uncomfortable, thus they may try to resolve the ambivalence in one direction or the other (toward the positive or the negative emotion). Another response to resolving ambivalence can be avoidance (Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt, & Pradies, 2014), such that the co-worker adopts a defense mechanism of having a low focus on both emotions. The co-worker can also respond with holism, which is defined as “The simultaneous and typically conscious acceptance of both opposing orientations” (Ashforth et al., 2014, p. 1470) with gratitude and guilt offsetting, resulting in no reaction. Given the current state of uncertainty in the science related to ambivalent emotions and their expression, it is difficult to formulate specific propositions for ambivalent positive/negative emotions in the current model. However, we are hopeful that as ambivalence research evolves, future scholars will be able to do so.

Discussion

Research implications and future directions

The model presented in this work contributes to the burgeoning field of i-deals research by enriching our understanding of co-worker reactions, which have been less well-studied, but are nonetheless crucial for gaining insights into the broader impact of i-deals as implemented in organizations. One significant and novel contribution of our model is that it anticipates and accounts for a wide range of co-worker reactions, taking a much more holistic look at reactions differing in terms of target (co-worker [self], i-dealer, the organization), valence (positive, neutral, negative), and strength of response or activation (active, passive). Our theoretical framework makes possible a more nuanced approach to future research on the impact of i-deals, including attention to subtle reactions that may not be immediately observable but have important future consequences (e.g., passive, self-targeting reactions such as loss of focus).

This framework is also novel in that it brings emotions to the forefront of co-worker i-deals reactions research. The model highlights the central role of co-worker emotions as antecedent to attitudinal and behavioral reactions, and explains why variability in co-worker reactions is possible, even in response to the same i-dealer. By elaborating on a variety of possible emotions and reactions to justice and injustice, we respond to calls for such research by i-deals scholars (Guerrero & Challiol-Jeanblanc, 2016; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016), and extend prior justice-based theorizing (Greenberg et al., 2004).

Our theoretical model suggests several avenues for future research on co-worker reactions to i-deals. At the intraindividual level, the relative influence of deservingness judgements versus appraisals could be examined in laboratory research using policy capturing to determine which of these judgements is most dominant in predicting emotions and outcomes, and how factors such as i-deal content, co-workers’ concerns, or friendship with the i-dealer affect this weighting. Experience-sampling methodology could be used to document which, when, and how co-workers’ emotions arise and change over time in reaction to new/changing information and to updated appraisal and deservingness cognitions, and also to then examine how these shifting emotions affect the types of behaviors that co-workers enact. In addition, researchers could assess whether these within-person changes are moderated by stable dispositional tendencies such as personality. This approach could also be helpful for developing insights into how co-workers deal with, and possibly resolve, ambivalent feelings about others’ i-deals. At the group level, longitudinal research would be useful for examining the timing and dissemination/spread of changes in co-workers’ attitudes and behaviors as a result of introduction of an i-deal in a work group. Questions such as how friendship ties, multiplex relationships, or network position of the i-dealer (e.g., Venkataramani, Zhou, Wang, Liao, & Shi, 2016) affect patterns of cognitions (e.g., deservingness and appraisal), emotions, attitudes, and behaviors of co-workers could be readily explored using social network methods.

Future research might also explore whether co-workers with strong leader–member exchange relationships (LMX; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) resist reacting negatively to a colleague’s i-deal lest it threaten their own LMX relationship. Also, given that co-worker support is important (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), identifying strategies used by i-dealers to secure peer assistance through proactively influencing peers’ assessments of deservingness and/or appraisal would be an interesting extension of our theory that would lend itself to empirical study.

Practical implications

In addition to suggesting several avenues for future research, our theoretical model also has several practical implications. The first relates to communication. Even though managers are advised to be transparent so as to avoid perceptions of favoritism (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2004), managers often do not feel they need to justify themselves and/or do not want to open the door for a flood of requests; they tend to err on the side of omission of information, unless co-workers ask questions. By choosing this reactive communication strategy, however, they lose control of the timing and interpretation of i-deal-related information collected by co-workers or disclosed by the i-dealer. Our model suggests that individuals who have been denied requests for i-deals are one group likely to be especially sensitive to cues about others’ i-deals and to actively seek information from and about those they suspect of having i-deals (e.g., by asking new hires or star performers directly) and/or from other peers or managers (i.e., through collective sensemaking). When those co-workers find out about others’ i-deals through such efforts, it may further negatively color their appraisals of the i-deal. Secrecy may also lead to heightened scrutiny about the i-dealer’s deservingness, as secrecy feeds suspicion that the i-deal was due to favoritism rather than deservingness (Greenberg et al., 2004). To the degree that organizations proactively manage the conversations about i-deals by being open about when and why they are (and are not) granted, they may be able to shape the collective sensemaking process and reduce these negative reactions. Being proactive also allows organizations to highlight positive spillover and reputational benefits of i-deals for co-workers, shaping more favorable appraisals.

Second, our theorizing suggests that managers should exercise caution in negotiating i-deals on a case by case basis without regard to the prevalence and types of already-existing i-deals in the group, as they may inadvertently lose sight of the cumulative burdens and lost opportunities perceived by non-i-dealers. While managers can increase procedural justice perceptions by assuring co-workers that they have a similar opportunity for an i-deal as needed in the future (Greenberg et al., 2004), in the short-term, the promise of a possible, to-be-determined-in-the-future i-deal does not change the immediate situation where the workload of a co-worker is increased or she is otherwise negatively affected by the i-deals of one or more colleagues. In our example of Professor Shukla’s co-workers, had they not willingly offered their lab space to help him but were instead forced to do so, or if Professor Shukla was the third or fourth of several senior “stars” to have received such an i-deal, his arrangement might have elicited more resentment or malicious envy, leading to negative behaviors.

Moreover, our model suggests that managers need to be aware of the influence of perceived organizational norms on co-worker reactions. In an organization where i-deals have historically been given only to high performers and very rarely, granting an i-deal based on family need may be seen as suddenly inconsistent with the existing norm, eliciting unexpected reactions. Also, managers need to be cognizant of the dampening effect of these norms on some reactions, in that co-workers may actually feel more strongly about another’s i-deal than their overt attitudes or behaviors suggest. Suppression of overt behaviors does not prohibit expression of ill will in more subtle ways (Neuman & Baron, 1997).

Conclusion

In closing, we reiterate that our aim in spotlighting co-workers’ reactions to i-deals has been to develop a more nuanced and theoretically grounded understanding of how these reactions develop and take a variety of forms. We discuss how a co-worker’s perceptions of deservingness of the i-dealer and his or her appraisal of the i-deal jointly generate emotions ranging from positive to negative and even include ambivalent feelings. Acknowledging that collective sensemaking informs these co-worker cognitions and experienced emotions and that organizational norms for differential treatment of employees shape how experienced emotions are expressed, we also emphasize the importance of the context in influencing the target, intensity, and positivity/negativity of co-worker attitudes and behaviors. The arguments advanced here underscore the importance of avoiding a myopic view that only considers i-dealer outcomes, and ignores co-worker reactions, when gauging overall i-deal effectiveness.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge and thank Denise M. Rousseau for her comments and insights on an earlier version of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Adams

J. S.

(1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Anand

Vidyarthi

P. R.

Liden

R. C.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2010). Good citizens in poor quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 970–988.

Aron

E. N.

Tudor

Nelson

(1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.

Ashforth

B. E.

Humphrey

R. H.

(1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115.

Ashforth

B. E.

Rogers

K. M.

Pratt

M. G.

Pradies

(2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25, 1453–1478.

Ayduk

May

Downey

Higgins

E. T.

(2003). Tactical differences in coping with rejection sensitivity: The role of prevention pride. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 435–448.

Bal

P. M.

De Jong

S. B.

Jansen

P. G.

Bakker

A. B.

(2012). Motivating employees to work beyond retirement: A multi-level study of the role of i-deals and unit climate. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 306–331.

Bamberger

Belogolovsky

(2017). The dark side of transparency: How and when pay administration practices affect employee helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 658–671.

10.

Barsade

G. S.

O’Neill

A. O.

(2014). What’s love got to do with it?: The influence of a culture of companionate love in the long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 551–598.

11.

Bedeian

A. G.

(1995). Workplace envy. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 49–56.

12.

Belser

(2011, 1 25). Special deals improve the work of all employees, not just top performers. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.postgazette.com/stories/business/news/special-deals-improve-the-work-of-all-employees-not-just-top-performers-283288

13.

Ben-Ze’ev

(1990). Envy and jealousy. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 20, 487–516.

14.

Ben-Ze’ev

(2002). Are envy, anger, and resentment moral emotions? Philosophical Explorations, 5, 148–154.

15.

Bertocci

P. A.

Millard

R. M.

(1963). Personality and the good: Psychological and ethical perspectives. New York, NY: McKay.

16.

Blader

S. L.

Wiesenfeld

B. M.

Fortin

Wheeler-Smith

S. L.

(2013). Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 62–80.

17.

Borman

W. C.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt

Borman

W. C.

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Brickman

Bulman

R. J.

(1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In Suls

J. M.

Miller

R. L.

(Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 149–186). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

19.

Bruner

(1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Harrison

D. A.

(2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of co-worker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103.

21.

Clark

M. S.

Mills

(1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.

22.

Colella

Paetzold

R. L.

Zardkoohi

Wesson

M. J.

(2007). Exposing pay secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 55–71.

23.

Colquitt

J. A.

Rodell

Long

Halvorsen-Ganepola

(2015). Adding the “in” to justice: A qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 278–297.

24.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

Rodell

J. B.

Long

D. M.

Zapata

C. P.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.

25.

Cooke

R. A.

Szumal

J. L.

(1993). Measuring normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in organizations: The reliability and validity of the Organizational Culture Inventory. Psychological Reports, 72, 1299–1330.

26.

Crusius

Lange

(2014). What catches the envious eye? Attentional biases within malicious and benign envy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 1–11.

27.

Cuddy

A. J.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.

28.

Elfenbein

H. A.

(2007). Emotion in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315–386.

29.

Emmons

R. A.

McCullough

M. E.

(2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.

30.

Feather

N. T.

(2008). Perceived legitimacy of a promotion decision in relation to deservingness, entitlement, and resentment in the context of affirmative action and performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1230–1254.

31.

Fischer

K. W.

Shaver

P. R.

Carnochan

(1990). How emotions develop and how they organise development. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 81–127.

32.

Fiske

Taylor

(1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: Random House.

33.

Fiske

S. T.

(1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906.

34.

Fiske

S. T.

Linville

P. W.

(1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.

35.

Folger

(1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In Masters

J. C.

Smith

W. P.

(Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

36.

Fong

C. T.

(2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030.

37.

Friedland

Thibaut

Walker

(1973). Some determinants of the violation of rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 103–118.

38.

Frijda

N. H.

Mesquita

(1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In Kitayama

Markus

H. R.

(Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 51–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

39.

Gibson

D. E.

Schweitzer

M. E.

Callister

R. R.

Gray

(2009). The influence of anger expressions on outcomes in organizations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2, 236–262.

40.

Gioia

D. A.

Chittipeddi

(1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 443–458.

41.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.

42.

Greenberg

Roberge

M. E.

V. T.

Rousseau

(2004). Fairness in idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an i-deal. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 1–34.

43.

Greenwald

A. G.

(1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618.

44.

Guerrero

Challiol-Jeanblanc

(2016). Idiosyncratic deals and helping behavior: The moderating role of i-deal opportunity for co-workers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 433–443.

45.

Hornung

Rousseau

D. M.

Glaser

(2008). Creating flexible arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 655–664.

46.

Huo

Luo

Tam

K. L.

(2014). Idiosyncratic deals and good citizens in China: The role of traditionality for recipients and their coworkers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 3157–3177.

47.

Ibarra

Barbulescu

(2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35, 135–154.

48.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.

49.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

50.

Kim

J. Y.

Nam

S. H.

(1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications for organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9, 522–534.

51.

Lai

Rousseau

D. M.

Chang

K. T. T.

(2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Co-workers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 547–556.

52.

Larsen

J. T.

McGraw

A. P.

Cacioppo

(2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 684–696.

53.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American Psychologist, 37, 1019–1024.

54.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

55.

Lazarus

R. S.

Lazarus

B. N.

(1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

56.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 91–131.

57.

Liao

Wayne

S. J.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2016). Idiosyncratic deals in contemporary organizations: A qualitative and meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S9–S29.

58.

Liu

Lee

Hui

Kwan

H. K.

L. Z.

(2013). Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 832–840.

59.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

60.

Lord

Diefendorff

Schmidt

Hall

(2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543–568.

61.

Louis

(1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.

62.

Maitlis

Christianson

M. K.

(2014). Sensemaking in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125.

63.

Marescaux

De Winne

(2015). Equity versus need: How do co-workers judge the distributive fairness of i-deals? In Bal

P. M.

Rousseau

D. M.

(Eds.), Idiosyncratic deals between employees and organizations: Conceptual issues, applications, and the role of co-workers (pp. 107–121). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

64.

Masterson

S. S.

Stamper

C. L.

(2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee–organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 473–490.

65.

Mehra

Kilduff

Brass

D. J.

(1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 441–452.

66.

Miceli

Castelfranchi

(2007). The envious mind. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 449–479.

67.

Mitchell

M. S.

Vogel

R. M.

Folger

(2015). Third parties’ reactions to abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1040–1055.

68.

Nebenzahl

(2011, 1 21). Special deals are game-changer for problem employees. The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/business/2011/01/21/special_deals_can_be_a_game_changer_for_problem_employees.html

69.

Neuman

J. H.

Baron

R. A.

(1997). Aggression in the workplace. In Giacalone

Greenberg

(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

70.

T. W. H.

Feldman

D. C.

(2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 419–427.

71.

T. W. H.

Lucianetti

(2016). Goal striving, idiosyncratic deals, and job behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 41–60.

72.

Ortony

Clore

G. L.

Collins

(1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

73.

Parrott

W. G.

(1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

74.

Parrott

W. G.

Smith

R. H.

(1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920.

75.

Pratt

M. G.

Doucet

(2000). Ambivalent feelings in organizational relationships. In Fineman

(Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed., pp. 204–226). London, UK: SAGE.

76.

Robinson

S. L.

Bennett

R. J.

(1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.

77.

Robinson

S. L.

O’Reilly

Wang

(2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39, 203–231.

78.

Rothman

N. B.

Melwani

(2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42, 259–282.

79.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2004). Under the table deals: Preferential, unauthorized or idiosyncratic? In Griffin

O’Leary-Kelly

(Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 262–290). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

80.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

81.

Rousseau

D. M.

V. T.

Greenberg

(2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994.

82.

Russell

J. A.

(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.

83.

Ryan

A. M.

Wessel

J. L.

(2015). Implications of a changing workforce and workplace for justice perceptions and expectations. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 162–175.

84.

Salancik

G. R.

Pfeffer

(1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

85.

Shah

P. P.

(1998). Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent others. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 249–268.

86.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Kulik

(2005). Third parties’ reaction to employee mistreatment: A justice perspective. In Staw

Kramer

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 185–231). New York, NY: Elsevier.

87.

Skarlicki

D. P.

O’Reilly

Kulik

(2015). The third party perspective of (in)justice. In Cropanzano

Ambrose

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 235–255). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

88.

Smith

C. A.

Ellsworth

P. C.

(1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.

89.

Smith

R. H.

(1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of envy and jealousy (pp. 79–99). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

90.

Smith

R. H.

(2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In Suls

Wheeler

(Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 173–200). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

91.

Smith

R. H.

Parrott

W. G.

Ozer

Moniz

(1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 705–711.

92.

Solomon

R. C.

(1977). The passions. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

93.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

94.

Tangney

J. P.

(1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102–111.

95.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

96.

Taylor

S. E.

Fiske

(1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York, NY: Academic Press.

97.

Van de Ven

Zeelenberg

Pieters

(2011). Why envy outperforms admiration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 784–795.

98.

Van de Ven

Zeelenberg

Pieters

(2012). Appraisal patterns of envy and related emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 195–204.

99.

Van Dyne

Cummings

L. L.

McLean Parks

J. M.

(1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

100.

Van Harreveld

van der Pligt

Yael

(2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the maid model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 45–61.

101.

Venkataramani

Zhou

Wang

Liao

Shi

(2016). Social networks and employee voice: The influence of team members’ and team leaders’ social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 37–48.

102.

Vough

Caza

(2017). Where do I go from here? Sensemaking and the construction of growth-based stories in the wake of denied promotions. Academy of Management Review, 42, 103–128.

103.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

104.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

105.

Werner

J. M.

(1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 98–107.

106.

Whitman

D. S.

Caleo

Carpenter

N. C.

Horner

M. T.

Bernerth

J. B.

(2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 776–791.

107.

Zajonc

R. B.

(1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117–123.

108.

Zilber

T. B.

(2007). Stories and the discursive dynamics of institutional entrepreneurship: The case of Israeli high-tech after the bubble. Organization Studies, 28, 1035–1054.