Multiple stages surrounding i-dealer
As described in Fig. 1, in all cases and all periods (i.e. entry to first task assignment, ramp-up and after ramp-up), there were multiple performances in several combinations: (1) performance by i-dealer and supervisor (Stage A), (2) performance by i-dealer (Stage B), (3) performance by supervisor and coworkers (Stage C), (4) performance by coworkers (Stage D), and (5) performance by supervisor (Stage E). And in all of them, we were able to clearly distinguish between performance in the “front stage” and the “back stage” (Table.1, Table. 2, and Table. 3).
Performance by i-dealer and supervisor (Stage A)
During the entry to first task assignment period, i-dealers and supervisors focused on front-stage performances to demonstrate the legitimacy of i-deals and justify the special treatment (Table. 3). On the front stage, i-dealers and supervisors engaged in symbolic justification, where they attempted to legitimize the privileged status of the i-dealer by referencing prior accomplishments or presenting “hard evidence.” In parallel, supervisors employed preemptive fairness framing to pre-empt concerns about favoritism, offering detailed explanations of how and why the i-deal was granted. Another notable front-stage behavior was justifying accessible privilege, in which supervisors framed the i-deal as attainable by any qualified employee, emphasizing openness and meritocracy.
In contrast, backstage interactions revealed more complex emotional and symbolic work. Basically, supervisors and i-dealers worked to ease the i-dealers' anxiety about others’ scrutiny and evaluations, as well as their instability during this period. For ordinary employees, organizational socialization and support are typically not hidden. However, in the case of i-dealers, revealing such anxiety could undermine their image as excellent contributors. Therefore, these efforts were often conducted in private, away from coworkers (private struggle and support). I-dealers quietly dealt with uncertainty or confusion, and supervisors offered informal, emotional support through private conversations or gestures. On the other hand, supervisors understood that such i-deals were rare and involved scarce resources and risks, despite their front-stage claims of accessibility. However, they avoided openly discussing these limitations with subordinates to prevent demotivation (ambiguated privilege maintenance).
Performance by i-dealer (Stage B)
We identified a set of symbolic performances initiated independently by i-dealers to navigate the delicate social positioning that accompanies their receipt of i-deals (Table. 3). These performances were not instructed nor visibly coordinated, yet they aligned closely with the broader impression management efforts enacted by supervisors and i-dealer (stage A). I-dealers engaged in conformity signaling, where they intentionally downplayed their differences and performed alignment with team norms and practices—even when these conflicted with their own preferences or past experience. By signaling behavioral conformity, i-dealers worked to mitigate potential threat, envy, or symbolic disruption in the eyes of coworkers. In status sensitivity performance, i-dealers demonstrated acute awareness of local hierarchical dynamics. In some cases, they deliberately withheld displays of competence that could be interpreted as outshining their supervisors. This strategic self-restraint reinforced the supervisor’s authority and helped preserve face within a culturally sensitive power structure.
On back stage, i-dealers carried out what we call invisible alignment effort. These included private inquiries into unspoken rules, discreet consultation with trusted insiders, and efforts to emulate culturally appropriate behavior. Though individually motivated and often unnoticed by others, these backstage efforts served to prepare i-dealers for more coherent and acceptable front-stage performances. They also created micro-alignments with the supervisor’s intentions—without requiring explicit coordination.
These three categories illustrate how i-dealers independently—but not in isolation—participate in the co-construction of symbolic order. Especially in the early phase of their tenure, their individual actions were deeply intertwined with and complementary to the stage A efforts.
Performance by supervisor and coworkers (Stage C)
We also identified symbolic behaviors performed by coworkers or supervisors toward the i-dealer as their audience (Table. 3). These performances partly reflected genuine feelings toward the i-dealer's potential to bring results but also aimed to avoid workplace conflict and protect the i-dealer's face. First, supervisor and coworkers engaged in what we term welcoming impression performance, where they emphasized the value and relevance of the i-dealer by presenting them as a long-awaited and much-needed member of the team. These front-stage gestures helped reduce anxiety and constructed a sense of belonging for the i-dealer. A more specific form was scripted inclusion cue, such as phrases like “we’ve been waiting for you” and "we expect you." These were not spontaneously generated, but often recommended or rehearsed in advance—sometimes at the suggestion of a supervisor. While seemingly simple, these verbal cues functioned as symbolic tokens of inclusion, designed to align front-stage impressions with organizational expectations of smooth assimilation.
At the same time, our data revealed backstage conversations among coworkers that we labeled conditional endorsement talk. These remarks expressed cautious optimism while implicitly withholding full acceptance. For instance, coworkers acknowledged the i-dealer’s impressive background but simultaneously noted that performance on “this project” would serve as the real test. Such backstage talk served to sustain symbolic equilibrium, presenting front-stage support while maintaining a readiness to reevaluate the i-dealer’s legitimacy.
Performance by coworkers (Stage D)
Coworkers’ performance is more divided between front and back stages (Table. 3). These behaviors served to manage the order of relationships in the workplace and were particularly prominent during this initial period. One common behavior was what we call dual affirmation performance, where coworkers simultaneously supported the i-dealer and endorsed the supervisor’s decision. By praising the i-dealer’s comments or explicitly referencing the supervisor’s judgment (“I think that was a great call”), these performances sought to reinforce symbolic harmony across both directions—affirming not only the newcomer but also the supervisor figure who had granted the i-deal. A related pattern was good neighbor performance, in which coworkers demonstrated extra politeness, supportiveness, and openness toward the i-dealer, often under the implicit premise that “being a good teammate” was part of expected conduct. Such gestures—while outwardly collegial—also served as a subtle acknowledgment of the supervisor’s authority and an attempt to embody the ethos of a harmonious workplace.
However, these front-stage behaviors were sometimes accompanied by latent judgment on back stage. In backstage conversations, coworkers expressed lingering skepticism—not only toward the i-dealer’s qualifications, but also toward the supervisor’s decision-making. While they welcomed the i-dealer on the surface, they privately questioned whether the special treatment was truly deserved. These backstage remarks reflected unresolved evaluative tension, and illustrate how symbolic legitimacy remains negotiable even after an initial welcome has been performed. This includes actions like assessing whether the i-dealer's experience and skills justify the i-deal or collecting gossip about their hiring. The results of such evaluations typically become apparent only after the ramp-up period and influence their perceptions tangibly afterward.
Table 3
Categories and representative data: Entry to first task assignment
Types of Stages | Regions | First-order codes | Descriptions | Representative Quotes | |
|---|
Stage A [performer] i-dealer and supervisor [audience] coworkers | Front stage | symbolic justification | Actions that use symbolic resources such as past achievements to secure the consent of others and the legitimacy of i-deals. | “(I) tried to get my new colleagues to notice me by sharing some specific results I pulled off at K(the name of his previous company).” (I-1: i-dealer) “I've pulled together some hard facts about his achievements. Some people won't be convinced unless I lay it out for them as clearly as possible”(S-1: supervisor) | |
preemptive fairness framing | Acting to anticipate and explain away members' feelings of unfairness or suspicion in order to gain their understanding. | “What (I) was most worried about was that the team might think I was playing favorites... So, I was super carefully explaining his qualifications and why the arrangements were being handled the way they were. I also got some info from him. Stuff like this can be tricky, right?” (S-2:supervisor) | |
justifying accessible privilege | A rhetorical strategy that reframes i-deals as accessible to all, provided certain conditions are met. | “I was worried the team might feel discouraged. To prevent that, I made sure they [team member] understood that the tasks I assigned to him [i-dealer] weren’t just his to own. If you want it, and if you are qualified, I’ll give.” (S-2: supervisor) | |
Back stage | private struggle and support | Informal or confidential efforts to cope with stress, uncertainty, or adaptation difficulties, often occurring outside of public view. | “That being said, I was really having a tough time. I mean, things were done so differently compared to my old company. I had to quietly get tips from people I trusted.” (I-1: i-dealer) “I told him that if he ever ran into trouble, he could talk to me about it. I even invited him to a café to make it easier, since I knew things were different from my old company.”(S-1: supervisor) | |
ambiguated privilege maintenance | actors ambiguously acknowledge that an i-deal is not truly accessible to all, thereby maintaining symbolic order while avoiding direct contradiction. | “Honestly, this is a unique case. There aren’t many people with his experience.” (S-2: supervisor) “Actually, her case is special, but it's hard to say exactly what that means.” (S-3: supervisor) | |
Stage B [performer] i-dealer [audience] supervisor and coworkers | Front stage | conformity signaling | A symbolic strategy of aligning with group norms to reduce perceived disruption, performed to mitigate envy or threat. | “I’ve always worried about how I started. Being the first person to be treated this way was a big deal.Some members may fear I’d disrupt their way of working or take their chances to shine. So, I worked hard to show I wasn’t trying to change everything. Sometimes, I even went along with their methods, even if they felt a bit inefficient.” (I-4: i-dealer) | |
status sensitivity performance | A deliberate act of self-restraint by the i-dealer to avoid undermining their superior and to comply with local power dynamics. | “It’s not a good idea to outshine my boss, so I was careful about that. I know more about the technical stuff, but he’s the one in charge. That’s just how things work here.” (I-4: i-dealer) | |
Back stage | invisible alignment effort | Hidden efforts to understand and adapt to implicit expectations through informal learning and relationship-building. | “At first, I tried desperately to fit in at work. I asked my boss questions about the Japanese company's personnel system and secretly checked my predecessor's notes. Little by little, I quietly built up a circle of supporters.” (I-2: i-dealer) | |
Stage C [performer] supervisor and coworkers [audience] i-dealer | Front stage | welcoming impression performance | A performance designed to make the i-dealer feel valued and accepted, often as part of a first encounter ritual. | “Anyway, I made sure he could work comfortably. How can I put this... I guess you could say we made him feel like we’d been waiting for him, because we really do need his skills.” (C-2: coworker) | |
scripted inclusion cue | A phrase or gesture suggested by others to be used symbolically in welcoming the i-dealer into the team. | “I think I said something like, “We’ve been waiting for you!” Because our boss kept saying, “We need his skills. Let’s make him feel welcome.” (C-11: coworker) | |
Back stage | conditional endorsement talk | Backstage talk that mixes support with quiet scrutiny, conveying that full legitimacy is not unconditional. | “We often said things like, “Let’s see what she’s made of.” Of course, we all knew her impressive resume, so no one doubted her skills, basically. But this project was different. While we had high hopes for her, we couldn’t help but wonder if she could actually pull it off.” (C-7: coworker) | |
Stage D [performer] Coworkers [audience] supervisor and i-dealer | Front stage | dual affirmation | performance affirming both the i-dealer and the supervisor to support workplace harmony across relational hierarchies. | “It was my boss who brought him [i-dealer] in, so my first thought was how to make her [supervisor] look good. I told her I believed she made the right call. For example? I’d often mentioned something like, “I think that was a great point,” in response to his opinion.” (C-13: coworker) | |
good neighbor | A symbolic display of kindness and respect toward the i-dealer, reinforcing both peer relations and deference to the supervisor’s judgment. | “The same goes for him. Since she recommended him, I made an effort to be as polite as possible. For instance, I’d say things like, “If you have any problems, feel free to let me know.” I tried to be a good teammate.” (C-13: coworker) | |
Back stage | latent judgment | Backstage expressions of internal doubt toward the i-dealer and their sponsor, revealing underlying tensions beneath the symbolic welcome. | “My heart was still not at peace. I couldn't get the thought of why it was her out of my mind. I kept thinking about her background, and whether the work she was being given and other things were really commensurate with what she was being offered. Like a judge.”(C-9: coworker) “Even though we welcomed him, we couldn’t help feeling a bit uneasy. We were aware of the special treatment he’d received. Of course, we wanted him to succeed, but at the same time, we were a bit skeptical—did he really deserve it? Was the boss’s decision the right one?”(C-1: coworker) | |
| Ramp-up period |
Interestingly, during the entry to first task assignment period, stage E (i.e., the supervisor's solo performance) was not observed. This is because, at this stage where star silence is not yet apparent, the interests of the supervisor and the i-dealer, as well as those of the supervisor and the coworker, are aligned. The supervisor's solo performance begins in the next period (ramp-up period), when they begin to notice star silence.
He just got here, but with all the hype around him, you kinda expect him to do something big right away, you know? I mean, you don't always need actual results to see if someone’s good — you can usually tell just by working with them. But with him… honestly, there were a lot of moments where I was like, “Wait, what?” (C-11: coworker)
Performance by i-dealer and supervisor (Stage A)
When the ramp-up period begins, all three parties become aware of the silence of the i-dealers and begin to respond to the situation in their own ways (Table. 4). In this period, we observed a series of symbolic performances enacted by both i-dealers and supervisors to manage coworker expectations, protect legitimacy, and shape perceptions of progress. First, i-dealers and supervisors engaged in legitimizing the difficulty of delivering results, emphasizing that even highly capable individuals need time to show results. These front-stage performances reframed delayed outcomes as typical, thereby helping to align coworker expectations with the reality of ramp-up complexity. In parallel, they also used emphasizing the difficulty of contextual transfer, drawing attention to the organizational uniqueness that can impede immediate success. Rather than attributing delay to personal inadequacy, this rhetorical move framed the challenge as situational, not individual.
Behind this front stage, however, a more complex picture emerged. Supervisors applied invisible acceleration pressure, privately encouraging i-dealers to speed up results while deliberately avoiding public expressions of this urgency to preserve morale and symbolic order. At the same time, i-dealers engaged in symbolic justification through micro-wins, amplifying minor achievements to justify their exceptional status in the absence of significant outcomes. These backstage claims helped them maintain legitimacy without overreaching. Finally, we observed discreet symbolic scaffolding, where supervisors provided substantial support during the ramp-up phase but did so covertly to avoid signaling incompetence to coworkers. The goal was to enable performance without exposing the underlying scaffolding.
Performance by supervisor (Stage E)
The discovery of the star's silence partially dismantles the close cooperation between the supervisor and the i-dealer, allowing the supervisor's independent performance to be observed. During this period, for the first time, the performance of supervisors alone began to be observed. During the ramp-up period, supervisors faced the complex task of managing their position between the i-dealer and coworkers (Table. 4). Our analysis identified four key patterns through which supervisors navigated this dual-audience challenge. First, supervisors engaged in justifying the judgment, publicly defending their decision to grant an i-deal by highlighting the i-dealer’s past accomplishments and small but emerging contributions. This front-stage performance aimed to reassure coworkers while reinforcing legitimacy in the eyes of the i-dealer. Simultaneously, they practiced demonstrating mutual solidarity, carefully signaling support and empathy toward both parties (i-ldear and coworkers). By acting as an ally to the i-dealer and a sympathetic listener to coworkers, supervisors sought to maintain relational balance and symbolic trust across hierarchical and peer relationships.
Behind this stage, however, supervisors also adopted more defensive tactics. Through redirecting accountability, they discreetly sought to diffuse or shift responsibility for the i-deal decision, particularly when facing growing coworker skepticism. This backstage maneuver protected their own credibility without undermining the unity of the workplace. Finally, supervisors engaged in quietly defusing disconten, subtly amplifying the i-dealer’s contributions to dampen coworker dissatisfaction before it could escalate. This strategy allowed supervisors to manage tensions informally and preserve surface-level harmony without triggering overt confrontation.
Performance by supervisor and coworkers (Stage C)
During the ramp-up period, supervisors and coworkers also performed symbolic acts directed toward the i-dealer as their audience, subtly managing expectations while avoiding direct criticism. We identified two key patterns that reflect the interpersonal negotiation of patience and emerging doubt (Table. 4). First, we observed temporarily extending patience, a front-stage strategy in which supervisors and coworkers signaled leniency toward the i-dealer’s delayed performance. Through soft language, humor, or vague reassurance (e.g., “It’s okay, there’s still time”), they conveyed that underperformance remained tolerable—for now—thereby maintaining a relationally safe environment while gently communicating awareness of the situation.
However, we also identified an underlying shift, which we label subtle onset of doubt. In backstage conversations, both supervisors and coworkers began to quietly question the i-dealer’s potential and contribution. These doubts were not voiced directly but surfaced through informal remarks and skeptical tones, hinting at growing symbolic tension without overt challenge. In places where i-dealers are not present, skeptical remarks such as those symbolized by C-11's narrative, which we have already introduced, have begun to be observed here and there.
These two patterns illustrate how tolerance and suspicion coexist during ramp-up: while patience is performed publicly, evaluative doubts begin to surface in private. This duality reflects the socially calibrated nature of performance judgment in high-stakes symbolic environments.
Performance by coworkers (Stage D)
As the ramp-up period progressed, coworkers developed a range of symbolic strategies to manage their reactions toward the i-dealer and the supervisor. Our analysis identified two distinct patterns reflecting how coworkers negotiated their dissatisfaction while avoiding open conflict (Table. 4). First, we observed feigning indifference, a front-stage strategy where coworkers intentionally suppressed visible frustration. Instead of confronting the i-dealer or the supervisor, they acted as if the i-dealer’s limited contribution did not matter, maintaining a tolerant and detached appearance. This performance protected relational harmony and allowed coworkers to preserve social decorum while internally monitoring the situation.
At the same time, speculative monitoring unfolded on back stage. Coworkers engaged in casual side conversations where they quietly exchanged mild skepticism and guarded observations about the i-dealer’s abilities and legitimacy. Although not openly critical, these remarks revealed growing symbolic tension beneath the surface, suggesting that the patience previously extended was becoming increasingly conditional.
Coworkers had already noticed the star silence during the ramp-up period and had begun to express skepticism toward it. This early evaluation, as suggested by C-11's remarks, stems from the fact that i-dealers are star employees. However, throughout this period, thanks to the front-stage performances of the three parties, awareness of the silence did not lead to a disruption of workplace order. Through their individual and collective front-stage performances, the potential threat posed by star silence was neutralized.
Table 4
Categories and representative data: Ramp-up period
Types of Stage | Regions | First-order codes | Descriptions | Representative Quotes |
|---|
Stage A [performe] i-dealer and supervisor [audience] coworkers | Front stage | legitimizing the difficulty of delivering results | A performance that frames delayed results as natural, even for capable individuals. | “Using examples from past projects, I told the team that it was too early to judge the project's success at this stage. Also, I highlighted the small contributions he made, saying things like, “This is the kind of result we've achieved since I came.” (I-1: i-dealer) “What I wanted the team to understand was that results don’t happen overnight. No matter how talented he is, he needs time. Sure, I wanted quick results too, but if I said that, it would put the whole group in that mindset [so I held back].” (S-1: supervisor) |
emphasizing the difficulty of contextual transfer | A cue that attributes slow results to the difficulty of adapting to a new organizational context, even for skilled employees. | “I explained to my team that the situation is different, which is why results aren’t showing as quickly.” (S-2: supervisor) “I tried to hint that this project was different from past ones. The tricky part was that if I said it outright, the team might take it as an excuse. I was thankful my boss had my back.” (I-2: i-dealer) |
Back stage | invisible acceleration pressure | A hidden push from the supervisor for faster performance, kept out of coworker view to protect symbolic legitimacy. | “When it was just the two of us, I told him I wanted to see results quickly. Of course, I couldn’t say that in front of the others, because I didn’t want to risk hurting his pride.” (S-4: supervisor) |
justification through micro-wins | Highlighting small outcomes to maintain legitimacy in the absence of major results. | “I also highlighted the small achievements I had made. Of course I knew that if I came across as too boastful, it might make my abilities seem less impressive.”(I-4: i-dealer) |
discreet scaffolding | providing support privately to help the i-dealer ramp up without weakening their perceived competence. | “We spared no effort in supporting him so that he could achieve results as quickly as possible. The problem is that if we provide too much support, it will prove that he is not yet fully capable.” (S-1: supervisor) |
Stage E [performer] supervisor [audience] i-dealer and coworkers | Front stage | justifying the judgment | Defending the decision to coworkers through references to prior and emerging accomplishments. | “I struggled to explain to the members that my decision was not wrong. I pointed out his past achievements and emphasized the small results that were beginning to appear.” (S-1: supervisor) |
demonstrating mutual solidarity | Signaling alignment and empathy toward both the i-dealer and coworkers to maintain relational balance and symbolic trust. | “Even though I had doubts about his performance, I felt it was important to show that I believed in him and was on his side. As a matter of fact, I wondered if he could actually pull it off, but I didn’t want him to know that.” (S-2: supervisor) “I was very concerned about the skeptical looks on the members' faces. I kept trying to convey the same message to them in different ways, saying things like, “I understand what you're saying, but please be patient a little longer.” (S-2: supervisor) |
Back stage | redirecting accountability | coping tactic in which the supervisor subtly shifts or diffuses responsibility for the decision to grant the i-deal | “Of course, I was worried about my own responsibility, especially when people started asking, “Who brought that person here?” Naturally, I began thinking about how to respond to those questions and how to make them see that what I did was the right decision.”(S-3: supervisor) |
quietly defusing discontent | discreetly manages coworker frustrations by modestly amplifying the i-dealer’s contributions to reduce visible dissent. | “No matter how much I explain, there will always be some members who complain, and you’ll hear grumbles from different corners. In those cases, it’s crucial to address their concerns privately rather than in front of everyone. Since it’s a sensitive issue.” (S-2: supervisor) |
Stage C [performer] supervisor and coworkers [audience] i-dealer | Front stage | temporarily extending patience | sending gentle messages in which supervisors or coworkers signal to the i-dealer that underperformance is still acceptable for now. | “Some of my subordinates started saying things like, “He’s not making much progress.” But they didn’t say it openly and kept watching quietly. One day at lunch, one of them said, “Well, it’s going to take a little longer,” and the others nodded in agreement. I think everyone was trying to be careful.” (S-4: supervisor) |
Back stage | subtle onset of doubt | supervisors or coworkers begin to quietly question the i-dealer’s potential, hinting at skepticism without direct confrontation. | “One day, one of the members asked me skeptically, “When will he start contributing?” I replied, “It won’t be long now,” but I could understand how he felt.” (S-3: supervisor) |
Stage D [performer] Coworkers [audience] supervisor and i-dealer | Front stage | feigning indifference | acting deliberately as if they are unaffected by the i-dealer’s underperformance. | “Uh… how do I say this… I kinda acted like I didn’t notice he wasn’t really pulling his weight. I pretended like it didn’t bother me. I was like, “It’s fine,” though I didn’t actually say it out loud — I just acted in a way that made it obvious.” (C-13: coworker) “I bit my tongue. There was so much I wanted to say — to my boss, and to her — but I kept it all in. I just played it off, like it didn’t bother me, like it wasn’t even worth the energy.” (C-7: coworker) |
Back stage | speculative monitoring | quietly exchanging casual comments and mild skepticism about the i-dealer’s performance, without confronting either the i-dealer or the supervisor. | “We were all kinda chatting just to get a chance to catch up. Whispering stuff like, “Hey, how’s he doing these days?” or “I heard he’s been clashing with his boss.” I think everyone was curious, you know? But no one really wanted to rock the boat — it was one of those touchy situations.” (C-13: coworker) “I mean, you can’t help but talk about it, right? He came in with such a big splash, so it’s like… people naturally notice. Not every little thing he does stands out, but still, he’s hard to ignore. We’d say things like, “Is he actually as great as the boss says he is”(C-7: coworker) |
| After ramp-up period |
During this period, the silence of the star becomes apparent to many people. The i-dealer continues to justify the i-deals they receive and attempts to visualize their contributions, but the extent to which supervisors and coworkers agree with these efforts varies greatly depending on the case. Whether or not they secure this alignment has a significant impact on the outcome of the i-deals themselves. In the cases of Company V's I-1 and Company W's I-3, supportive behavior from supervisors and coworkers continued until the i-dealers finally achieved results. In contrast, in the cases of Company V's I-2 and Company X's I-4, supportive actions from supervisors and coworkers ceased, leaving the i-dealers in a precarious position.
Performance by i-dealer and supervisor (Stage A)
After the ramp-up period, i-dealers and their supervisors made deliberate efforts to showcase the i-dealer’s value to the team (Table. 5). We identified three key symbolic strategies they employed. First, they engaged in framing invisible contributions, drawing attention to subtle improvements—such as slight efficiency gains—that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. This performance aimed to legitimize the i-dealer's presence by reframing what "success" meant. Second, they practiced reframing contribution, where even small or secondary accomplishments were amplified to reinforce the i-dealer’s relevance and maintain symbolic legitimacy. In this way, they kept the i-dealer’s image positively framed despite limited major achievements.
Meanwhile, on back stage, i-dealers engaged in visibility management, the deliberate and cautious efforts by individuals to make their contributions visible to others, while carefully managing impressions to avoid appearing boastful or self-aggrandizing. This refers to secretly preparing behind the scenes, such as thinking about how to make your contributions visible and preparing to make them visible. It involves preparing subtle ways to highlight one’s achievements in a manner that maintains credibility and enhances perceived competence.
It is important to note that the collaborative performances observed in Stage A (Framing Invisible Contributions, Elevating Minor Achievements, and Calibrated Self-Advocacy) were not present in all cases. They emerged only under specific social conditions established during the Entry to First Task Assignment phase. Specifically, such collaborative symbolic efforts were observed only when two key conditions were met: (1) procedural legitimacy was formed, meaning that coworkers perceived the granting of the i-deal as justified and acceptable; and (2) a positive interpersonal relationship was developed between the i-dealer and coworkers. Both conditions depended on whether the actions taken during the entry to first task assignment period were successful or not. Specifically, the first condition was related to whether symbolic justification, preemptive fairness framing, and justifying accessible privilege were effective, while the second condition was related to whether private struggle and support and invisible alignment effort were effective.
In our cases, these conditions were confirmed in the cases of company V’s I-1, compnay W’s I-3, and company X's I-4. In these cases, the supervisor and the i-dealer were able to engage in mutually supportive symbolic actions that reinforced the i-deals legitimacy and buffered them against potential social scrutiny.In contrast, when procedural legitimacy was not achieved and relational trust remained weak—as observed in the case of company V ’s I-2—the collaborative performance was absent. I-dealers were unable to rely on symbolic support from supervisors and were forced to perform the above actions independently, placing them in a socially unstable position within the workplace. Without a protective framework established jointly with supervisors, i-dealers became more vulnerable to increased visibility, critical monitoring, and isolation from colleagues.
Performance by supervisor and coworkers (Stage C)
When the above two conditions, namely procedural legitimacy and positive interpersonal relationships, are established, at the entry to first task assignment phase, a joint symbolic effort by coworkers and supervisors became possible (Table. 5). First, they engaged in feigning tolerant patience, symbolically expressing continued acceptance of the i-dealer’s slow progress, even if internal doubts had begun to emerge. This act masked dissatisfaction and preserved a surface-level image of harmony.
Alongside this, on back stage, quiet learning occurred, where both coworkers and supervisors quietly extracted lessons from the experience without openly criticizing the i-dealer. This learning process aimed to inform future decisions while avoiding overt disruption to the current symbolic order. It is important to note that such coordinated performances were observed only when early procedural legitimacy was successfully formed. In cases where early acceptance was lacking, joint efforts to manage tensions symbolically were notably absent.
Performance by supervisor and coworkers (Stage C)
When the above two conditions, namely procedural legitimacy and positive interpersonal relationships, are established, at the entry to first task assignment phase, a joint symbolic effort by coworkers and supervisors became possible (Table. 5). First, they engaged in feigning tolerant patience, symbolically expressing continued acceptance of the i-dealer’s slow progress, even if internal doubts had begun to emerge. This act masked dissatisfaction and preserved a surface-level image of harmony.
Performance by coworkers (Stage D)
On Stage D, the symbolic strategies of coworkers diverged depending on the degree of early procedural legitimacy and relational quality formed during the Entry phase (Table. 5). When procedural legitimacy was accepted and relational ties were positive, coworkers participated in maintaining symbolic stability through three primary patterns. First, on front stage, they engaged in maintaining surface harmony, publicly refraining from criticizing the i-dealer or supervisor despite growing internal doubts. Second, on back stage, they practiced reframing expectations, quietly adjusting their standards for the i-dealer’s performance to protect team cohesion. Third, on back stage, they developed skepticism toward supervisor judgment, where doubts about the supervisor’s decisions were privately discussed but not publicly expressed, allowing symbolic trust to remain largely intact.
However, when procedural legitimacy was lacking and relational tensions persisted, a different dynamic unfolded. In these cases, the clear separation between front stage and backstage performances eroded, and dissatisfaction began to surface gently but perceptibly. Coworkers engaged in polite expression of discontent on front stage, cautiously voicing mild critiques toward the supervisor while maintaining formal politeness. They also practiced quietly downgrading of i-dealer on back stage, subtly lowering their evaluations of the i-dealer’s competence in public discussions. Furthermore, through subtle doubting of supervisor decisions on back stage, coworkers discreetly hinted at their dissatisfaction with the supervisor’s judgment regarding the i-deal without engaging in open confrontation.
These front-stage behaviors allowed frustrations to emerge without overt conflict, revealing how the symbolic order around i-deals could fray quietly and unevenly over time. Overall, these findings highlight the fragility and contingent nature of symbolic maintenance following the granting of i-deals. Initial procedural acceptance and relational dynamics shaped whether symbolic stability was preserved, quietly renegotiated, or gently destabilized through subtle public performances.
Table 5
Categories and representative data: After ramp-up period
Types of Stage | Conditions | Regions | First-order codes | Descriptions | Representative Quotes |
|---|
Stage A [performe] i-dealer and supervisor [audience] coworkers | only when procedural legitimacy and positive relational ties exists | Front stage | framing invisible contributions | Making subtle or less noticeable contributions more visible to coworkers to reinforce perceived value. | “I wanted the team to understand that contributions aren’t always obvious. I highlighted the small but important things he had done and shared them with the team.”(S-4: supervisor) “Some of my contributions weren’t easy to notice. For instance, the lead time for client work improved slightly after I joined. I needed the team to see things like that, but since I couldn’t say it directly. I often relied on my boss.”(I-4: i-dealer) |
reframing contribution | Amplifying secondary accomplishments to sustain symbolic legitimacy and social relevance. | “I had to show my presence mattered. Even if it wasn’t XX [the main contribution], I tried to get my colleagues to notice me by highlighting YY [the secondary contribution].” ”(I-3: i-dealer) “What really helped both him [i-dealer] and me was when one of the members said, “Thanks to him [i-dealer], the meeting was a lot shorter, wasn’t it?” Honestly, it was trivial, but it was enough to convince the others that he was somewhat useful.” (S-4: supervisor) |
Back stage | visibility management | The deliberate and cautious efforts by individuals to make their contributions visible to others | “I also highlighted the small achievements I had made. Of course I knew that if I came across as too boastful, it might make my abilities seem less impressive.”(I-4: i-dealer) |
Stage C [performer] supervisor and coworkers [audience] I-dealer | only when procedural legitimacy and positive relational ties exists | Front stage | feigning tolerant patience | Performing tolerance toward the i-dealer by suggesting that underperformance is still acceptable for now, masking emerging dissatisfaction behind an appearance of continued patience. | “I thought, “It’s about time you made a contribution to us.” If saying that would have brought out his contribution, I would’ve gladly said it. But it's nonsense. So instead, I said, “There’s still time. We’re part of a big company [even if you don't get much done, the company won't go bankrupt], so it’s okay.” (C-3: coworker) |
Back stage | quiet learning | Without openly criticizing the i-dealer or supervisor, coworkers begin to draw lessons from the situation and prepare to better manage similar cases in the future. | “What shocked me was when she [subordinate] said, “If something like this happens again, I’d like you to ask us a little earlier. That way, we’ll have time to think about how to welcome the one.” Her words implied that she thought “my [supervisor] approach to him [i-dealer] was wrong.” (S-3: supervisor) |
Stage E [performer] Coworkers [audience] supervisor and i-dealer | with procedural legitimacy and positive relational ties | Front stage | Maintaining Surface Harmony | refraining from openly criticizing the i-dealer or supervisor, prioritizing the maintenance of outward harmony despite internal doubts. | “I decided to keep quiet. Honestly, I was nearly giving up on him, but I figured saying anything wouldn’t make a difference.”(C-10: coworker) “I think my boss was the most confused since it was my boss who brought him [i-dealer] in. I was determined not to embarrass her [supervisor], especially after she convinced HR and the board to hire him [i-dealer]. I think the other team members were also trying to help by telling others in the workplace that he [i-dealer] was doing well.” (C-13: coworker) |
Back stage | reframing Expectations | adjusting their initial expectations about the i-dealer’s performance to cope with growing disillusionment. | We talked about how we had set too high expectations for him. It wasn't that he was incompetent, but that we had made a mistake in our assessment. (C-9: Coworker) |
skepticism toward supervisor judgment | questioning the supervisor’s decision-making regarding the i-deal. | “I basically appreciate her [supervisor] abilities, but I have some doubts about this case.” (C-12: coworker) “After all, she [supervisor] ’s not always right—nobody is perfect.” (C-14: coworker) |
without procedural legitimacy and positive relational ties | Front stage | polite expression of discontent | cautiously voicing mild concerns about the supervisor’s decision while preserving formal respect. | “I told him, “I’d like to see some results soon.” Of course, I didn’t say it that bluntly—I phrased it as, “Are you almost done with the warm-up?” (C-6: coworker) |
Back stage | downgrading of i-dealer | subtly lowering their evaluation of the i-dealer’s contribution in public interactions, signaling disillusionment without overt confrontation. | “Maybe we were expecting too much. Maybe we should lower our expectations a bit.”(C-5: coworker) |
subtle doubting of supervisor decisions | discreetly hinting at doubts about the supervisor’s judgment during public conversations, maintaining politeness while letting dissatisfaction surface. | “I do respect what he’s capable of, but honestly, I'm not so sure about how she's handling this situation.” (C-4: coworker) “At the end of the day, he (S-2)’s human too—you can’t expect him to nail everything.t.” (C-6: coworker) |
| The collapse of performance and workplace order |
Clearly, the workplace order surrounding star silence is maintained by the performance of the three parties on the front stage and their joint acting. In the case of company V's I-1 and company W's I-3, joint acting was made possible by the success of the acting of the i-dealers and supervisors during the initial entry to first task assignment period. Their performance was the result of successfully explaining procedural legitimacy during the entry to first assignment period and successfully forming good relationships among the three parties. As a result, despite star silence, workplace order was preserved (Path A in Fig. 2).
In the case of Company V's I-2, where these initial efforts failed, during the post-ramp-up period, dissatisfaction among colleagues toward the i-deals assigned to I-2 escalated, leading to the decision to terminate the project she was leading before she could achieve the expected results (Path B in Fig. 2). As a result, I-2 voluntarily resigned. Even if the situation had not deteriorated further before she left the company, the i-deals would have eventually been terminated.
An interesting exception is the case of I-4 at Company X. In this case, despite the successful performance of i-dealers and supervisors during the entry to first task assignment period and the successful collaboration among the three parties up to a certain point, the outcome ultimately mirrored that of the I-2 case. The contrast between Company X and the other companies made it clear that even if favorable behavior is taking place, it can suddenly collapse. The reason for this is the emergence of a new i-dealer. At Company X, about a year after I-4 (i-dealer) was hired, another Vietnamese person was hired. He was also offered various i-deals, but the difference with I-4 was that he brought about tangible outcomes in the workplace quite early after being hired. The newcomer's success led to a significant shake-up in various aspects of performance at X (especially it takes time, the situation is different, and contributions are hard to see).
The team members realized that some people can start contributing right away after changing jobs. I think the mood shifted subtly against I-4 once the newcomer joined, and things got tougher for him (S-4: supervisor)
The contrast between Company X and the other companies made it clear that even if favorable behavior is taking place, it can suddenly collapse. The reason for this is the emergence of a new i-dealer. At Company X, about a year after I-4 (i-dealer) was hired, another Vietnamese person was hired. He was also offered various i-deals, but the difference with I-4 was that he brought about tangible outcomes in the workplace quite early after being hired. The newcomer's success led to a significant shake-up in various aspects of performance at X (especially it takes time, the situation is different, and contributions are hard to see).
The team members realized that some people can start contributing right away after changing jobs. I think the mood shifted subtly against I-4 once the newcomer joined, and things got tougher for him (S-4: supervisor)