Our analysis revealed that the individualization of the workplace triggered by i-deals operates primarily through two psychological mechanisms: psychological entitlement among recipients and malicious envy among coworkers. These dynamics gradually erode cooperative norms and workplace cohesion. To mitigate these effects, organizations employ three complementary mechanisms: (1) reshaping institutional conditions (e.g., transparent evaluations, accessibility, and commoditization), which provide cognitive legitimacy for i-deals; (2) preventing social comparison, which regulates the emotional impact of status differentials; and (3) taking an ethical/relational lens, which functions as a metacognitive lens that reshapes how i-deals are interpreted. Importantly, we found that the first two mechanisms, though necessary, were not sufficient. Only in cases where the ethical/relational lens was present did organizations successfully buffer the divisive effects of i-deals.
The individualization of the workplace
In all four companies, interviewees mentioned that offering i-deals could lead to upward comparisons among colleagues who observed them, and could eventually cause feelings of malicious envy.
(By observing others receiving idiosyncratic deals) there are times when someone's feelings get a little frayed, or when a certain few people are momentarily tormented by noise. There are times when you hear people say, “That person has moved on.” This is especially true for members of the same team or department. (omission) You feel, “So, what about me?” (A-3)
In those situations, I don't know if the word “envy” is the right one, but I feel like “Why not me, but that person? I think that's only natural. (C-1)
Similarly, in all four companies, employees also reported that being offered i-deals would lead to the i-dealer’s making downward comparisons with their colleagues, and this would lead to a sense of entitlement. However, such a sense of entitlement, at least in Asia, does not seem to manifest itself in direct actions, but rather in more subtle ways.
I think there are cases like that (i.e. cases where individuals who receive i-deals start to think of themselves as special) even in Vietnamese companies. If they receive idiosyncratic deals, why do they think they are excellent and special? I think that could happen to anyone, in any company, and we can't blame them for it. (C-1)
I think that Japanese people, or perhaps it would be better to say Asian people, don't take an arrogant attitude or look down on other people just because they have received such treatment (i.e. idiosyncratic deals). However, it is possible that a sense of entitlement may grow in the depths of their hearts, and this may manifest itself in their behavior, albeit in a subtle way. In fact, I have seen such cases in my company. (A-3)
The i-dealer, who is the direct beneficiary of i-deals, and the coworkers, who do not directly benefit from i-deals (although they are not victims), are in completely different positions. Nevertheless, the sense of entitlement felt by the i-dealer and the malicious envy felt by the coworkers lead them both to behave in a similar way in the workplace, in terms of uncooperative behavior. For example, company B, in order to respond to business expansion, hired engineers who were among the best in the industry from other companies and implemented several i-deals centered on financial incentives. As a result, existing members became cynical and some employees left the company.
The problem is that it (envy) can lead to a cynical mentality and reduce cooperative behavior in the workplace. If someone is in trouble at work, we naturally want to help them. But what if there is someone who is better off than you? It's not surprising that you might think to yourself, “There's no need for me to go out of my way to help that person” or “There's no need to help someone who is in a better position than me.” (B-3)
What we need to be careful about is how people with this kind of mentality will act afterwards. Some people who receive idiosyncratic deals think, “So I'll work even harder” or “I'll contribute more to the company”, but there are also people who think, “There's no need to work any harder than this” or “I'm already contributing just by being here”. Some of these people end up becoming more interested in increasing their own profits. (B-1)
Organizational strategies to handle negative effects of i-deals
Through multiple interviews with four companies, three themes emerged that are related to factors that mitigate he negative effects of i-deals: reshaping institutional conditions, canceling social comparison, and taking an ethical/relational lens. Of the four companies, all three themes were observed in companies A, C, and D, but in company B, the existence of the ethical/relational lens could not be confirmed. This finding suggests that while institutional conditions and cancelling social comparison are necessary conditions for mitigating the negative effects of i-deals, they are not sufficient.
Reshaping institutional conditions
Four important themes emerged regarding institutional conditions are: multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, accessibility, and commoditization of i-deals (Table 3). Of these, multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, and accessibility are themes related to the so called “procedural justice” (Gachayeva et al., 2024).
Multifaceted Evaluation
The findings suggest that when i-deals are granted based on evaluations that incorporate multiple perspectives rather than the discretionary judgment of a single evaluator, both the risk of entitlement among i-dealers and the likelihood of malicious envy among colleagues are significantly reduced. Specifically, the following three subcategories play a crucial role.
Multiple Evaluators
The involvement of multiple, independent evaluators in the decision-making process ensures that the granting of an i-deal is based on objective and impartial evaluation, rather than personal preference. This plurality and independence ensures that i-dealers are aware that the i-deal was awarded based on a fair evaluation, rather than preferential selection, and so are less likely to develop a sense of entitlement. Similarly, their colleagues are also less likely to perceive the decision as arbitrary, and more likely to see it as fair, reducing feelings of malicious envy.
Diversity of Reference Information
By incorporating multiple reference points and performance indicators rather than relying on a singular evaluation metric, the legitimacy of the decision is strengthened. I-dealers are more likely to see the granted i-deal as a reward for their multifaceted contributions, rather than as an arbitrary benefit, reducing their sense of entitlement. Likewise, colleagues who observe that different dimensions of performance are considered in the evaluation process are more likely to perceive the outcome as fair rather than as favoritism, thus lowering the risk of malicious envy.
Transparency of Evaluation
Ensuring transparency in the evaluation process for granting i-deals also plays a significant role in mitigating entitlement and envy. Transparency consists of two key aspects:
Transparency of Evaluation Procedures
When the procedural steps through which i-deals are granted are well-defined and clearly communicated, i-dealers are less likely to perceive themselves as receiving special treatment. Instead, they understand that their i-deal resulted from a structured and standardized decision-making process. Likewise, colleagues are more likely to view the process as legitimate and procedural rather than discretionary or arbitrary, making them less prone to malicious envy.
Transparency of Evaluation Criteria
When the criteria for granting i-deals are explicitly defined and made accessible to employees, i-dealers are more likely to perceive their i-deal as an earned reward based on clear standards, rather than as an entitlement. At the same time, colleagues recognize that i-deals are not exclusive privileges but attainable opportunities for those who meet specific conditions, reducing feelings of unjustice and resentment.
Accessibility
Clarifying accessibility of i-deals—how employees can qualify for such arrangements—further mitigates entitlement and envy. This factor consists of two subcategories:
Clarification of Access Conditions
When employees clearly understand what conditions must be met in order to be eligible for i-deals, i-dealers perceive their granted i-deal as a result of merit-based selection rather than arbitrary favoritism, reducing their sense of entitlement. Additionally, colleagues, recognizing that they too have the opportunity to qualify for i-deals, are less likely to feel that certain individuals are unfairly privileged, thereby reducing malicious envy.
Denial of Permanence
If it is explicitly communicated that i-deals are not permanent and can be revoked or reassigned based on changing circumstances, i-dealers are less likely to perceive their i-deal as an indefinite privilege, mitigating the risk of entitlement. Similarly, colleagues who understand that i-deals are not fixed benefits but fluid arrangements subject to reassessment are less likely to perceive them as inherently unfair, reducing negative emotional reactions such as envy.
All of the above factors provide both parties with the perception that the i-deals being offered are reasonable. This sense of rationality makes the i-dealer aware that the i-deals they have been given have been provided through legitimate procedures and are therefore not permanent. Simultaneously, it also raises the awareness among their colleagues that the i-deals have been provided through authorized procedures, and that they too have the potential to receive them if they meet the same conditions.
Commoditization of i-deals
Findings from the interviews alsoindicate that increasing the frequency of i-deals and similar arrangements in the workplace (Commoditization of i-deals) also serves as a mechanism for mitigating (1) the i-dealer’s sense of entitlement and (2) malicious envy among colleagues who witness i-deals. Unlike the previously discussed factors—Multifaceted Evaluation, Transparency of Evaluation, and Clarification of Accessibility—which function by enhancing the perceived justice of the evaluation process, commoditization of i-deals reduces entitlement and envy by positioning i-deals as an ordinary workplace practice rather than an exceptional privilege.
Commoditization of i-deals consists of the following three subcategories:
Heavy Use of Individuality
Providing personalized support to employees in ways beyond simply granting i-deals—such as conducting frequent one-on-one meetings to discuss career aspirations and offering individualized development opportunities—plays a significant role in reducing entitlement and envy. When employees perceive that the organization routinely engages in individual career discussions and support, i-dealers are less likely to feel that they alone are receiving special treatment, thereby reducing their sense of entitlement. When employees recognize that individualized attention is not exclusive to i-dealers, but rather a general practice applied to everyone, they are less likely to feel resentment toward those who receive i-deals, thus mitigating malicious envy.
Increase in Frequency
Expanding both the frequency and the scope of i-deals granted within an organization contributes to normalizing i-deals as a common workplace arrangement rather than a rare privilege. When i-deals are granted more frequently and to a larger number of employees, i-dealers perceive that they are not uniquely privileged but rather just a part of a broader, merit-based practice, which reduces their sense of entitlement. As i-deals become more widespread and accessible, colleagues are less likely to view them as an exclusive benefit reserved for a select few, thereby reducing their feelings of envy.
The findings reveal that Commoditization of i-deals mitigates i-dealers’ entitlement and colleagues’ envy not by reinforcing procedural justice, but by reducing the perception among them that i-deals are special privileges. While Multifaceted Evaluation, Transparency of Evaluation, and Clarification of Accessibility function through the ensuring of fair distribution and clear criteria, Commoditization of i-deals operates through diluting the exclusivity of i-deals and embedding them into routine organizational practices.
Table 3
Categories and representative data:
| Aggerate dimensions | Second-order themes | First-order themes | Descriptions | Quotes |
| Reshaping institutional conditions | Multifaceted evaluation | Multiple evaluators | Multiple people are involved in performance evaluations. | There is a human resources manager for each business. They are responsible for ensuring that the right people are in the right places within the business, and for selecting the right people for the job. At the same time, the human resources managers at our head office are responsible for human resources across the business. This means that we evaluate human resources from different perspectives. (B-1) When evaluating employees, we base our decisions on two factors. The first is the individual's abilities. More specifically, this refers to the degree of compatibility with the C culture and the high level of management ability as a leader. The second factor is work execution ability, in other words, whether or not the person has specialist knowledge and ability. This is measured through a 360-degree evaluation. (omission) The important thing is that the evaluation is not carried out by just one superior, but by several superiors, colleagues and subordinates. A number of people are picked out and they each carry out an evaluation. (C-1) Basically, the human resources department makes the decisions. However, when hiring star-class employees, the decision has to be made by someone higher up. This is very clear. It is clearly decided. There is a hiring committee for hiring star employees. In such cases, the HR department not only hires the person, but also forms an evaluation committee, reports the hiring process to that committee, and asks them to score the final score. If the HR department thinks that this person is likely to become a star, we will inform the committee. After informing the committee and having them look at various things, if the final decision is to hire this person, the HR department will create the conditions to offer to that person on their behalf, and the committee will make the final decision. (C-1) We also conduct 360-degree evaluations of employees, not just by their superiors. Subordinates evaluate each other. (D-2) |
| Diversity of reference information | Conducting evaluations based on a wide range of information | In addition to the information on the effects of personnel changes that is provided once every six months, we also take into account the results of the internal survey that we conduct every month. This is a quantitative measure of the conditions related to an individual's work. In addition, qualitative information is also important. This is the real key. The members of the human resources department try to go out to the workplace and interview employees whenever they have the time. The information obtained in this way is also shared among the human resources members. In some cases, we also consult with the executives. In any case, we evaluate talented people based on a variety of information (B-1). |
| Transparency of evaluation | Transparency of evaluation procedures | The evaluation process is open to employees | There are clear rules regarding recruitment. We try to stay within the framework of these rules as much as possible when negotiating with job applicants. At C, all the rules regarding personnel recruitment and the framework for recruitment are made public. So all employees know what criteria are used, what procedures are followed, what benefits are given for which jobs, and so on. They also know what salary level they will be paid when they join the company. (C-1) |
| Transparency of evaluation criteria | The evaluation criteria are open to employees | There are three criteria for the personnel evaluation: culture, leadership ability, and professional ability. Each of these has a set percentage. Basically, you get a score for each of the three abilities, based on the set percentages. If the overall score is high, that means the person is contributing to the company. (C-1) It is important to clearly share the idea that “the company needs people like this”. It is not just that the boss or the HR department thinks this, but it is important that the members share this idea on a daily basis. If, for example, it is understood that strengthening DX is an urgent issue, then it will be logically correct to treat employees who excel in DX well. (A-2) Basically, we don't give people high salaries that exceed this level (the clearly defined salary range). Even if you are contributing to a project team rather than a line job, when the project is over, it will be possible to visualize how much profit you have increased for the company, and to a certain extent, you will be able to see how much you will be paid. (D-2) |
| Accecibility | Clarification of access conditions | The conditions for receiving i-deals must be clearly stated and made public. | Not only do they properly evaluate those who have made efforts that match the needs of the company and achieved results, but they also provide them with tangible opportunities for the future. For example, they might assign them to a position that involves work outside of Vietnam. By making their achievements and rewards visible in this way, it becomes a model case that can be shared with other members. I think it makes it clear what you can do and what you can achieve. (A-2) For example, in the case of A-4, before offering her an idiosyncratic deal, she was made to take a test (on a subject that was important to the company) and she passed it. The fact that she passed a difficult and important test would not only be known within Vietnam, but also reach the ears of the HR department in Singapore. This would allow the members to clearly understand that “she is excellent” and “she is making an effort to meet the company's reporting requirements”. This would mean that there would be no room for argument. (A-2) |
| Denial the permanence | Denying the permanence of i-deals | The pool of people who receive special education is fluid. This year, someone is on the list, but next year, that person may be off the list. Adjustments are made every year, so there is no such thing as the person becoming arrogant because of it. (A-1) |
| Commoditization of i-deals | Heavy use of idiosyncrasy | The perception that the i-deals are not permanent | At our company, we carefully create a career path for each individual. Once a year, the employee and their supervisor have a one-on-one interview to discuss the employee's career aspirations. After hearing the employee's wishes, the human resources department compiles the employee's wishes and creates a career path just for that person. (omission) During the one-on-one discussion with the supervisor, I ask them to give me their opinions on how to improve their work environment or work efficiency. (A-1) |
| Increase in frequency | i-deals are offered frequently | In fact, both mid-level and senior staff as well as young staff are frequently selected. In other words, there are many cases of selection within the organization. It is not only young staff who are selected. Everyone has the chance. (B-1) |
| Preventing social comparison | Cancellation of upward comparison ※ | Get them to look outside | To get people outside the workplace or organization to set a point of comparison or a standard for evaluation | I tell them to look at the market and look up. It's important to make sure they don't compare themselves with their colleagues. You need to make them realize that you're not competing with your colleagues sitting next to you, but with your rivals in the market, and that the people you need to show your excellence to are not your colleagues, but your customers. It's important to empathize with their concerns about how they're evaluated by their colleagues, but to make them realize that this is actually a small thing, and to make them look at themselves from a bird's eye view. (B-1) |
| Lowering the interaction with the i-dealer | Avoid direct comparisons by reducing the interdependence of members' work. | At my workplace, each member has their own specific area of work. For example, Mr. A is in charge of business X, and Mr. B is in charge of business Y. So there are no conflicts. Of course, when it comes to promotions, it becomes a zero-sum competition, but even in that case, it doesn't mean that Mr. A has won over Mr. B in all aspects. It's a kind of competition, but since it's not a direct competition, there are almost no conflicts. (A-4) |
| Cancellation of downward comparison ※ | Get them to look upward | Forming humility through making i-dealer look up | We deliberately show (to younger members) that employees who have been with the company for over 20 years and are at the executive level are still continuing to produce results, are still continuing to learn humbly, and are still working hard and honestly. I think that is the secret to maintaining the purity of a culture of “continuing to work hard with humility”. (B-2) We deliberately encourage members to set high goals. Let's say they achieve “result X”. But when you look to the side, there may be someone who has achieved “X + 1”. We bring the members' perspective to such superior people, in direct dialogue. Then, for example, we have them meet directly with superior people in higher positions, or have them make direct contact. We say things like, “Give him some advice”. (A-3) |
| Linguistic persuasion | forming humirity through linguistic Persuasion | I think there are cases like that (cases where members lose their humility by receiving idiosyncratic deals) even in Vietnamese companies. However, we are able to discover them at an early stage. There is a dialogue between the boss and the subordinate once every three months, and we are able to discover things to a certain extent at that time. If the person is bragging about themselves or becoming arrogant, the boss or the surrounding members will correct their way of thinking through conversation. (C-1) |
| Taking an ethical/relational lens | instilling ethical/relational value | the value that prioritizes organization over the individual | To instill a value system that prioritizes the organization over the individual | I think that the key is something a little different, because an individual is not a tool or a machine for a company. In the case of C, that is culture. (C-1) All employees who join C have to abide by these core values. No matter how jealous you may feel, you are still a member of C, so you have to act in accordance with the ideas and actions that C requires. You have to respect the company's rules and policies. C expects you to think about the company first and suppress your own needs. (C-1) |
| Becoming morally good | To instill the value that we should be good ethically | We created a pocketbook as a way of promoting our corporate culture. One of the core values in the pocketbook is “become a better person”. All employees understand and follow this. If someone becomes arrogant and stops cooperating with others, or if they become so proud of their own excellence that they no longer fit the C value, we ask them to leave. (C-1) There are five values that we cherish. One of these is “to become more than you were yesterday through learning”. This means aiming to become a better version of yourself than you were yesterday, rather than trying to beat or overtake someone else. If this culture is firmly established, I think that employees will be able to remain humble to a certain extent, and that human relationships will improve. (D-2) |
| Communication emphasizing ethics/relationships | Avoiding the use of competitive metaphors | To avoid using language and metaphors related to competition and winning at work. | It's important not to use words like “competition”, “contest” or “promotion” too much in your everyday life. If you talk about these things all the time, your colleagues will inevitably see you as “the other side of the competition”, “the enemy in the contest” or “the person who was promoted first”. I think that having fewer conversations like this leads to good relationships. (A-4) |
| formation of collectivity through communication | Emphasizing that one cannot do a job alone. | Basically, important conversations between members of the workplace and their superiors are one-on-one. Try to speak one-on-one during working hours. (omission)... As a basic premise, I emphasize that our work is not something that can be completed by one person, but is something that is done by a team. (omission)... Even if that person is a standout ace, it is necessary for them to know from the start that everyone's help is needed in order to achieve results. (A-2) We make a point of having people work together with a variety of people, rather than leaving everything to one person. This prevents employees from becoming competitive with each other, and also stops them thinking that they are the only ones contributing or that they are special. (D-2) |
* Indicates tabula gemini concepts.
This study highlights the importance of not only establishing procedural justice but also normalizing i-deals as a common practice within the organization. By doing so, organizations can reduce the likelihood of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement and prevent colleagues from perceiving i-deals as an unfair privilege, thereby fostering a more harmonious workplace environment.
Preventing social comparison
Cancellation of upward comparison
A primary driver of malicious envy among colleagues who witness i-deals is upward comparison, where they compare themselves unfavorably to the i-dealer and perceive the i-deal as an unfair advantage. Upward comparison intensifies perceptions of injustice and resentment, potentially leading to workplace tensions. This study identifies two key mechanisms that mitigate upward comparison: Get them to look outside and Lower the interaction with the i-dealer. These mechanisms function by broadening the pool of social comparison targets or increasing social distance from the comparison target, thereby reducing the intensity of envy-driven social comparison.
Get them to look outside shifts the reference point for social comparison from the i-dealer to external benchmarks, such as industry standards, competitors, or professionals in different career paths. By encouraging employees to compare their career trajectories and opportunities with external references rather than internal colleagues, organizations can dilute the perceived impact of an individual i-deal. Employees who see that various organizations implement flexible work arrangements or performance-based incentives are less likely to view i-deals as unique advantages granted to specific individuals. To facilitate this, interviewed organizations have successfully promote external networking opportunities, share industry best practices, and provide comparative insights on workforce trends. By expanding the frame of reference beyond immediate workplace comparisons, their employees were less likely to fixate on the advantages received by their colleagues.
Lowering the interaction with the i-dealers reduces direct social interactions between colleagues and the i-dealers to decrease the frequency and intensity of social comparison. Research on social comparison suggests that frequent exposure to a comparison target heightens envy, making it important to manage the proximity of employees to high-visibility i-dealers (Marescaux et al., 2019). This does not imply isolating i-dealers but rather strategically diversifying employees' comparison points by increasing exposure to different colleagues and work environments. Interviewed managers revealed that their organizations implement this through various methods such as promoting cross-team collaborations, rotating project assignments, or restructuring team dynamics to prevent employees from repeatedly comparing themselves to the same individuals. By creating a more fluid social environment, these organizations were able to diffuse the focus on i-dealers and prevent upward comparison from escalating into malicious envy.
Both mechanisms work by redirecting employees’ focus away from direct comparisons with i-dealers, either by shifting their reference points externally or by reducing social proximity to the i-dealers. These strategies ultimately help prevent the escalation of envy and maintain a more cohesive workplace environment.
Cancellation of downward comparison
One of the primary causes of an i-dealer’s sense of entitlement is downward comparison, where the i-dealers perceive themselves as superior to their colleagues because they have received an i-deal. This type of comparison can lead the i-dealers to believe that their success is entirely self-earned and that they inherently deserve special treatment. However, this study identifies two key mechanisms that mitigate downward comparison: Get them to look upward and Linguistic persuasion. Both mechanisms play a crucial role in cultivating humility, which in turn reduce the likelihood of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement.
Get them to look upward encourages i-dealers to shift their focus toward individuals who have achieved even greater success. By directing their attention to higher-performing peers, industry leaders, or organizational role models, i-dealers are reminded that there are still higher levels of achievement to strive for. This realization helps them recognize that their i-deals are not an inherent right but rather an opportunity for further growth. Strategies to implement this include introducing high-achieving role models, setting aspirational performance benchmarks, and encouraging comparisons with top performers across the industry. By continuously being driven to look upward, i-dealers develop a greater sense of humility and become less likely to perceive themselves as uniquely deserving of special treatment.
Linguistic persuasion refers to the use of managerial dialogue to shape the i-dealer’s perception of their i-deal. Through carefully framed conversations, managers reinforced the notion that i-deals were not personal privileges but rather contextual adjustments made in response to organizational needs and expectations. Additionally, interviewed managers emphasized the collective contributions of teams and organizational support structures that enable individual success. By hearing from management that their i-deals were just a part of a broader strategy rather than an exception granted to them alone, i-dealers were less likely to develop an inflated sense of entitlement.
Both mechanisms contribute to cultivating humility, which mitigates downward comparison and reduces the likelihood of an i-dealer perceiving himself as inherently more deserving than their colleagues.
The dual nature of procedural justice
This study confirms that procedural justice plays a crucial role in cultivating humility in i-dealers and mitigate malicious envy among coworkers. When i-deals are granted through a transparent and fair evaluation process, i-dealers perceive their advantages as a legitimate outcome of an equitable decision-making system rather than as an arbitrary privilege. This recognition reinforces that their success is not solely due to their own efforts, but is formally acknowledged within the organizational framework, giving them a sense of self-justification and accountability. Similarly, coworkers who witness i-deals granted through a procedurally fair system may experience reduced distrust and resentment, recognizing that these special arrangements are based on clearly defined criteria rather than favoritism.
However, this study also reveals that procedural justice can paradoxically amplify both an i-dealer’s sense of entitlement and coworkers’ malicious envy. Procedural justice reinforces the perception—among both i-dealers and their coworkers—that i-deals are not arbitrary privileges but rationally justified and institutionally sanctioned special treatments.
From the i-dealer’s perspective, procedural justice strengthens the belief that their i-deal was granted as a legitimate reward for their merit rather than as an exception. Consequently, i-dealers are more likely to see their i-deal not as a temporary benefit but rather as an entitlement reflecting their intrinsic value to the organization. The more they internalize the idea that they were selected through a fair and structured process, the more they may come to believe they deserve continuous special treatment. Rather than fostering gratitude or humility, procedural justice can sometimes reinforce an inflated sense of entitlement.
From the coworkers’ perspective, procedural justice can also intensify malicious envy rather than alleviate it. When an i-deal appears to be unfair, coworkers may rationalize the disparity by attributing it to arbitrary decision-making or managerial bias, allowing them to dismiss the outcome as an unjustified anomaly. However, when procedural justice is evident, this psychological escape route disappears. That is, coworkers are forced to acknowledge that the i-dealer’s advantage was conferred through a legitimate and merit-based process, which may lead to a painful realization that they were not deemed worthy of similar treatment. This, in turn, reinforces upward comparison, leading to greater dissatisfaction and resentment. The more an organization emphasizes procedural justice, the more coworkers may be confronted with the reality that they were objectively deemed less deserving than the i-dealer, intensifying their feelings of envy and perceived inferiority.
It is of course important to have clear evaluation criteria, to have a well-organized process, and to evaluate impartially and selflessly. If you don't do this, no one will be satisfied. However, an evaluation that leaves no room for argument is cruel in a sense. It's fine for those who are highly evaluated, but for those who are not evaluated, there is no way to make excuses. Such an evaluation does not allow members to make excuses such as “it's because the boss isn't looking properly” or “it just happened like that”. (B-3)
We are proud of the fact that we have a proper personnel evaluation system in place at our company. That being said, our evaluations are also strict. From the employees' point of view, it is difficult to disregard the evaluation that has been handed down or to deny the differences between oneself and someone else (C-1).
These findings suggest that procedural justice alone is insufficient to mitigate an i-dealer’s sense of entitlement or to prevent malicious envy among coworkers. The dual nature of procedural justice—its ability to both reduce and exacerbate these psychological reactions—highlights the need for additional mechanisms to regulate the social consequences of i-deals. As previously discussed, preventing downward comparison plays a crucial role in addressing an i-dealer’s entitlement. Encouraging i-dealers to shift their focus toward higher-performing individuals (Get them to look upward) and fostering humility through managerial discourse (Linguistic persuasion) can counteract the entitlement effects reinforced by procedural justice.
Similarly, cancellation of upward comparison is essential for mitigating malicious envy among coworkers. Shifting coworkers’ comparative focus away from the i-dealer and toward external benchmarks (Get them to look outside) or reducing direct interactions with the i-dealer (Lower the interaction with the i-dealer) can weaken social comparison intensity, preventing procedural justice from fueling resentment.
Thus, when organizations aim to enhance procedural justice in the distribution of i-deals, it is crucial to complement it with additional interventions that shape perceptions and regulate social comparisons. Procedural justice alone may not be enough; organizations must also cultivate humility among i-dealers and restructure comparative frameworks to prevent entitlement and envy. By integrating these complementary mechanisms, organizations can preserve both justice and social harmony in the workplace.
Taking an ethical/ relational lens
In the process by which i-deals may promote workplace individualization, organizational members engage in mitigating efforts that operate on multiple levels. First, Reshaping institutional conditions provide a logical interpretive framework through which specific i-deals are recognized as legitimate. Narratives emphasizing transparent access, justice, and multifaceted evaluation help establish the organizational legitimacy of these arrangements, thereby fostering acceptance among both recipients and coworkers. Second, Preventing social comparison works to suppress negative emotional reactions—such as malicious envy or entitlement—by cognitively decoupling self-evaluations from those of others. This is often achieved by framing others' i-deals as based on different efforts, roles, or circumstances.
Instilling ethical/relational value
However, while these two mechanisms help prevent or buffer individualistic responses, they are not sufficient on their own. They do little to shift the broader interpretive frame through which i-deals are perceived. This is where the third factor—Taking an ethical or relational lens—plays a critical moderating role.
The value that prioritizes organization over the individual encourages employees to think beyond their personal interests or career ambitions, instead aligning their decisions with the collective interests of the company. As a result, i-deals are not perceived as personal privileges but as rational adjustments made for the effective functioning of the organization.
Similarly, the emphasis on becoming morally good fosters the idea that receiving an i-deal is not merely about individual gain but is connected to ethical behavior and fulfilling the organization’s expectations. When employees internalize the notion that i-deals are not arbitrary rewards but tools that support those who uphold moral and organizational values, the risk of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement is reduced. Additionally, coworkers are less likely to perceive i-deals as unfair advantages, as they come to see them as an ethical and legitimate part of workplace operations, thereby mitigating malicious envy.
Communication emphasizing ethics/relationthips
Company A,C,D do not rely solely on top-down vision dissemination but rather emphasize dialogue between supervisors and employees to shape employees’ perceptions of i-deals. This approach focuses on workplace communication that encourages employees to interpret workplace events—such as the granting of i-deals—through a relational or ethical lens rather than a competitive or instrumental one. Two key strategies support this communication-based approach: avoiding the use of competitive metaphors and formation of collectivity through communication.
Avoiding the use of competitive metaphors refers to the conscious avoidance of expressions that frame workplace relationships in terms of competition, rivalry, or opposition. Phrases such as "I am competing with that person" or "We are professional rivals" are deliberately discouraged in everyday workplace conversations. By reducing the presence of competitive language, i-deals are less likely to be framed as prizes for the winners or unfair advantages gained through competition, helping to prevent both a sense of entitlement among i-dealers and envy among their coworkers.
Formation of collectivity through communication involves reinforcing the idea that no one can succeed alone and that individual achievements are made possible by the collective efforts of the team. Through regular conversations in the workplace, supervisors emphasize that organizational success is a shared effort and that i-deals should be understood as part of this collective dynamic rather than as isolated rewards for individuals. By embedding this perspective in daily communication, employees are encouraged to see i-deals not as special privileges but as rational adjustments necessary for the functioning of the team.
Importantly, such ethical/relational framing was absent in Company B, where i-deals had previously contributed to the breakdown of collaboration and even employee turnover. This contrast suggests that while reshaping institutional conditions and preventing social comparisons may help reduce tensions, they are necessary but not sufficient for mitigating workplace individualization. It is the presence of an ethical or relational interpretive lens that appears to deepen and stabilize these mitigating effects, allowing organizations to buffer against the divisive potential of i-deals.
Integrative Model of i-deals, individualization, and mitigating mechanism
What emerges from our findings is an integrative model about individualistic drift triggered by i-deals and mechanisms of mitigation (Fig. 1). To mitigate the individualizing effects of i-deals, these Asian organizations employed three complementary mechanisms, each targeting a different level of interpretation. First, Reshaping institutional conditions offered a rational framework that legitimized i-deals through principles such as transparent access and multifaceted evaluation, helping recipients and coworkers view them as fair. Second, preventing social comparison worked to suppress negative emotions like envy and entitlement by cognitively distancing employees from status-based comparisons. However, these two alone proved insufficient, as they did not alter how i-deals were fundamentally understood. The third mechanism—taking an ethical or relational lens—played a meta-cognitive role by reframing i-deals as expressions of collective purpose and moral contribution. This lens deepened the effects of the other two, enabling organizations to reinterpret i-deals not as special privileges, but as aligned with shared values and team functioning.