How envy and task interdependence impact team members' pro-social behavior?
Upward social comparisons (SC) often trigger malicious envy which leads to
destructive interpersonal intentions & behaviors toward the envied person – e.g.,
belittling them, schadenfreude - i.e., taking pleasure in their suffering, deceiving
them, sabotaging their outcomes and socially undermining them (Duffy et al., 2012;
Gino & Pierce, 2009; Moran & Schweitzer, 2008; Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Smith &
Kim, 2007; Vecchio, 1995). In the current research we test effects of envy in teams, a
fundamental unit in modern organizations, in which SCs are prevalent. We focus on
the understudied effects of envy on pro-social behavior: help giving (HG) and help
seeking (HS), and we explore the moderating role of a key team characteristic; task
interdependence (TI).
Based on a cost-benefit account, we hypothesize that envy toward upward SC
teammates will have detrimental effects on helping behavior, and that these will be
moderated by TI. A summary of our proposed model is provided in Figure 1.
Regarding HS, we posit that people will be particularly reluctant to seek help from
envied (vs. non-envied) peers, since the psychological costs typically associated with
HS - i.e., a threat to subjective independence, competence & self-esteem (Nadler,
1991; Nadler & Fisher, 1986; Wills & DePaulo, 1991) are augmented when the help
provider is self-esteem threatening (i.e., envied). We further suggest that this
reluctance will be moderated under high TI, which typically increases the recognition
of the need for cooperation (Anderson & Williams, 1996), and thus increases the
potential instrumental benefits of receiving help. Regarding HG, beside the typical
costs, such as reduced personal resources (e.g., time) and benefits, such as improved
self-esteem (e.g., Caprara & Steca, 2005), power (e.g., Flynn, 2003), perceived
expertise and performance evaluations (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009), we offer that
there are additional costs and benefits associated with providing help to and denying
help from peers that are envied. Specifically, there is an added cost of helping envied
peers – i.e., foregoing a specific advantage, and thereby an opportunity to decrease the
disadvantageous gap, and an added benefit of denying them help – i.e.,
schadenfreude. Moreover, people may also ponder about the type of help to provide:
“Autonomous help” which entails providing tools that enable recipients to solve
problems independently, vs. “Dependent help” which consists of final solutions only,
increasing recipients’ dependency (Bamberger & Levi, 2009; Nadler et al., 2009).
With respect to this discrepancy, and following the cost-benefit analysis, we propose
that people are likely to be particularly reluctant to providing envied peers with
autonomous help. We further expect this reluctance to provide envied peers with help,
especially autonomous help, to be moderated by TI. Because the intense interactions
created by high TI results in a clarification of the team's helping norms (Hackman,
1992), providing help, and especially profound help to others (i.e., autonomous help),
may serve as a means to comply with the team’s norms (Warburton & Terry, 2000;
Grant & Patil, 2012). This is in contrast to low TI teams, where helping is less
required and self-interested norms are more prevalent (Thompson, 1967; Van de Ven,
Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976).
We conducted 3 studies employing a 2 (envy: high vs. low, within subjects) X 2
(TI: high vs. low, between subjects) mixed factorial design. In all studies we first
employed a pilot tested envy manipulation, providing participants with SC
information about two virtual teammates; one superior, one neutral. We then
measured participants' decisions to seek help from (study 1), and provide help to
(studies 2, 3) these teammates, during a simulated team task, varying the extent to
which information overlapped among team members (i.e., high vs. low TI). In study 1
(N=64), we measured HS by offering participants opportunities to ask for help on
three pre-determined items. If they opted to ask, they chose between asking the envied
or non-envied teammate. In study 2 (N=66), we focused on HG by presenting
participants with simultaneous help requests from both teammates on three predetermined items. If they opted to comply, they chose the help recipient (the envied or
non-envied teammate). In Study 3 (N=104), we focused on differentiating between
the two types of HG (autonomous vs. dependent), as well as attempting to gain insight
into underlying mechanisms. Thus, after deciding who to help, participants chose
between providing final solutions (i.e., Dependent help), or final solutions &
explaining how to solve this type of question (i.e., Autonomous help). In addition, in
this study participants responded to a post task questionnaire measuring
schadenfreude & other feelings and attitudes toward each teammate.
Supporting our hypotheses, participants were indeed less likely to seek help from
(Study 1) and provide help, especially autonomous help (Studies 2 & 3) to envied vs.
non-envied peers, and this reluctance was moderated by TI (i.e., less apparent when
TI was high). Moreover, in Study 3 we found that schadenfreude mediated the effect
of envy on the decision to help. To conclude, consistent with a cost-benefit model, we
demonstrate the understudied detrimental effects of envy on helping behaviors in
teams, a fundamental organizational unit, and we propose a key team characteristic –
i.e., TI as a potential moderator of these destructive effects.
This research has several theoretical and practical implications. First, given
that teams have become a fundamental unit in organizations, gaining insight into
factors that affect teamwork has significant implications. Second, it expands the
current literature on envy by focusing on its understudied effects on pro-social (rather
than harming) behaviors, and particularly on its differential effects on varying types
of help. Last, our results have practical managerial implications – e.g., managers
might consider increasing TI, as an effective way of managing team-member envy
and overcoming its potential downsides in terms of decreased cooperation between
team members.
Figure 1:
Task Interdependence (TI)
-
Envy
-
Help Seeking (HS)
Help Giving (HG)
Help Giving Type (Aut. help)
References
1. Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors
related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282.
2. Bamberger, P. A., & Levi, R. (2009). Team-based reward allocation structures and
the helping behaviors of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 300-327.
3. Caprara, G.V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial
behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24, 191–217.
4. Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social
context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal,
55(3), 643-666.
5. Flynn, F. J. (2003). What have you done for me lately? Temporal changes in
subjective favor evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 91: 38–50.
6. Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the
presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2),
142-155.
7. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and
impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900.
8. Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. (2012). Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority
influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management
Review, 37(4), 547-568.
9. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting
Psychologists Press.
10. Moran, S., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2008). When better is worse: Envy and the use of
deception. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(1), 3-29.
11. Nadler, A. (1991). Help-seeking behavior: Psychological costs and instrumental
benefits. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 290-311.
12. Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived
control in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical validation.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 81-122.
13. Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Ben-David, Y. (2009). Defensive helping:
Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group
identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97(5), 823.
14. Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of socialcomparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 780.
15. Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin,
133(1), 46.
16. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17. Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig Jr, R. (1976). Determinants of
coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 322-338.
18. Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It’s not easy being green: jealousy and envy in the workplace.
In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 13,
201 – 244. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
19. Warburton, J., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Volunteer decision making by older people: A
test of a revised theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
22(3), 245-257.
20. Wills, T. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1991). Interpersonal analysis of the help-seeking
process. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical
psychology (pp. 350–375). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.