Why High Performers Struggle in The Workplace

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 102, No. 5, 845– 866 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000183
Hot Shots and Cool Reception? An Expanded View of Social

Consequences for High Performers
Elizabeth M. Campbell Hui Liao

University of Minnesota University of Maryland
Aichia Chuang Jing Zhou

National Taiwan University Rice University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Yuntao Dong
University of Connecticut
While high performers contribute substantially to their workgroups and organizations, research has
indicated that they incur social costs from peers. Drawing from theories of social comparison and
conservation of resources, we advance a rational perspective to explain why high performers draw both
intentional positive and negative reactions from peers and consider how cooperative work contexts
moderate these effects. A multisource field study of 936 relationships among 350 stylists within 105
salons offered support for our model and an experiment with 204 management students constructively
replicated our findings and ruled out alternative explanations. Results indicated that peers offered more
support and also perpetrated more undermining to high performers. Paradoxical cognitive processes
partly explain these behaviors, and cooperative contexts proved socially disadvantageous for high
performers. Findings offer a more comprehensive view of the social consequences of high performance
and highlight how peer behaviors toward high performers may be calculated and strategic rather than
simply reactionary.
Keywords: high performers, social support, social undermining, resource threat, strategic mistreatment
“Tall trees catch much wind.” —Dutch saying individuals (Deloitte Human Capital, 2008). Research on identi-
“The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” —Japanese proverb fying, engaging, and retaining high performers also dominates
“It’s lonely at the top.” —U.S. adage discussion among management scholars (Sackett & Lievens,
High performers are individuals whose job performance is rel- 2008), and prompts talent wars among organizations (Michaels,
atively higher than their peers (Kim & Glomb, 2014; Schmitt, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001; Sutton, 2007). While high
Cortina, Ingerick, & Wiechmann, 2003). Business leaders spend performers bring substantial value to their organizations and work-
disproportionate resources trying to attract, hire, and retain these groups, the above quotes about high performers imply that they
also attract substantial attention—and that their social experiences
may not be positive. Unfortunately, we are left with few insights
on how performance level impacts one’s social experience at work
since efforts to identify predictors of individual high performance
This article was published Online First February 13, 2017.
have eclipsed understanding its consequences (Burke, 1982).
Elizabeth M. Campbell, Carlson School of Management, University of
Minnesota; Hui Liao, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of
Increasingly, work occurs in groups, requires dynamic collabo-
Maryland; Aichia Chuang, College of Management, National Taiwan ration, and involves frequent social interaction (Grant & Parker,
University; Jing Zhou, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice 2009; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). As work grows more rela-
University; Yuntao Dong, School of Business, University of Connecticut. tional, understanding the social consequences of high performance
For valuable insights and feedback during the development of this seems valuable for at least two reasons. First, in groups, peers’
research, we thank Rachel Meredith, Rabiah Muhammad, Brady Firth, Joo knowledge of individual performance transmits quickly (Molle-
Hun Han, Gilad Chen, Subra Tangirala, Debra Shapiro, Rellie Derfler- man, Nauta, & Buunk, 2007), and— once known— differences in
Rozin, Kay Bartol, Adam Grant, Theresa Glomb, and members of the performance invite social comparisons, shape how peers judge one
Maryland M&O Student Presentation Series. For their help with data
another (i.e., as beneficial and/or as threatening), and affect how
collection, we are indebted to Huichen Hsu, Hui Yen Lin, and Sangeetha
Hariharan.
peers treat one another (Allport, 1954; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth Second, peers’ behaviors toward high performers matter more in
M. Campbell, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, relational work contexts. High performers are less likely to stay
321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: campbele@ with their organizations or sustain exceptional success if their
umn.edu social experiences are difficult or distracting (e.g., Jensen, Patel, &
845
846 CAMPBELL, LIAO, CHUANG, ZHOU, AND DONG
Raver, 2014) and even stars can flounder without supportive peer nisms that motivate peer support and undermining. Our research
relationships (Groysberg, 2010).1 reveals peers’ threat perceptions explain unique variance in their
Comprehensive review of related research indicates that peers mistreatment of high performers, which complements work that
may behave antisocially toward individuals with relatively high identified envy as an emotion driving high performer victimization
performance. Foundational management studies catalogued peer (Kim & Glomb, 2014). Third, we build knowledge of boundary
behaviors designed to pressure high producers to ease up (i.e., conditions. Given its increased popularity in organizations, we
“rate-busters;” Dalton, 1948) and demonstrated that outperformers examine how cooperative climate acts as a contextual moderator
can draw aggression, exclusion, and ridicule (Mayo, 1949; Roeth- to these effects. We also initiate investigation of who is more likely
lisberger & Dickson, 1939). Social comparison literature suggests to support or undermine high performers by exploring how peers’
that employees tend to compare themselves with those who are own performance level impacts their behaviors. Fourth, we expand
better than them (Festinger, 1954), which can spark negative the explanatory power of social comparison and conservation of
attitudes and behaviors toward high performers (Lam, Van der resources theories into the study of high performers. Fifth, high
Vegt, Walter, & Huang, 2011). Recent correlational studies have performer research to date has been correlational, so we test our
expanded knowledge of this phenomenon, showing that both model in a controlled setting to causally link high performance
smarter workers (Kim & Glomb, 2010) and high performers re- with peer perceptions, support, and undermining.
ported more victimization (Jensen et al., 2014; Kim & Glomb, In the following sections, we review theoretical foundations for
2014). These studies tell a disquieting story of peers’ inclination our model and develop specific hypotheses. We then present
toward mistreating high performers. findings from a two-wave, multilevel, multisource field study
Still, there are compelling reasons to expect a clear social upside (Study 1) and from an experiment (Study 2). Figure 1 summarizes
for high performers. Perhaps most importantly, upward compari- our model.
sons are not always negative, threating, or depleting, but rather can
be positive, self-enhancing, and inspiring (Collins, 1996). High Theory and Hypotheses
performers can also offer benefits and bring increased resources to
peers. We contend that knowledge of social consequences is in-
Parallel Calculations: The Benefit and Threat of
complete due to limited understanding of the range of peer behav-
Upward Comparison to High Performers
iors toward high performers, the mechanisms driving these behav-
iors, and the nature of the workgroup context. To improve Social comparisons are ubiquitous, involving the acquisition of
understanding, we offer and test an expanded model of social social information about others, comparative evaluation of that
consequences of high performance. We explain why peers are information, and then calculated reaction (Wood, 1996). They
likely to view high performers as both beneficial and threatening, serve a fundamental need to evaluate one’s relative standing by
and, in turn, target them for both support and undermining. We seeking context-relevant information and comparing “one’s own
ground our arguments to theories of social comparison (Festinger, features to those of others” (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Buunk &
1954) and conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) to Mussweiler, 2001; p. 467). For several reasons, we expect peers’
explain how peers’ upward comparisons to high performer can be upward comparisons to high performers are commonplace and
perceived as simultaneously beneficial and threatening to their necessary. First, in his formative work, Festinger (1954) asserted
resources at work. We offer a multimethod test of our model using that individuals possess an inherent “drive upward.” Since then,
a field study and a controlled experiment to capitalize on their robust evidence supports this original view: Individuals compare
respective and complementary strengths of external and internal their situation with those who are better than them (i.e., upward
validity. comparison; Buunk & Mussweiler, 2001) and often select those
We contribute to existing literatures in several ways. Chiefly, who set high standards as comparison targets (Feldman & Ruble,
we seek to offer a more comprehensive and balanced view of how 1981; Goethals, 1986). Second, while studies have shown individ-
peers rationally evaluate and intentionally behave toward high uals tend to compare themselves with similar others in the case of
performers at work. Inquiries to date have relied upon the victim characteristics (for review, Suls & Wheeler, 2013), they are more
precipitation model to explain how high performers serve as pro- likely to upwardly compare in the case of ability or performance;
vocative victims who spark emotional and aggressive reactance this may be due to the natural tendency to overestimate oneself on
from peers (e.g., Jensen et al., 2014; Kim & Glomb, 2014). We socially valued attributes like performance (Festinger, 1954;
join and extend high performer victimization research by expand- Greenwald, 1980). Third, whether peers choose upward, down-
ing understanding of the positive and negative social consequences ward, or parallel comparison largely depends upon what is salient
of high performance. In doing so, we expose a paradox of social and useful to the situation (Hogg, 2000; Suls & Wheeler, 2013).
behaviors toward high performers, broaden knowledge of the Individuals gravitate toward cues most relevant to the context
spectrum of social consequences they face, and more fully explain when making comparisons (Maner, Miller, Moss, Leo, & Plant,
their social experience. Accounting for peer support and under- 2012). At work, job performance stands out as a salient cue when
mining toward high performers seems crucial because studies have making evaluations and comparisons with others (Kim & Glomb,
shown that experiencing both support and undermining from the
same source can prove more harmful to one’s work and health than
1
undermining alone (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Hobman, While similar, the concept of a high performer is distinct from that of
a star employee. Beyond relative high performance, star employee perfor-
Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009; Nahum-Shani, Henderson, Lim, mance must be disproportionately high and prolonged; stardom also im-
& Vinokur, 2014; Uchino, Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Bloor, 2004). plies having substantial visibility and social capital (for review, Call,
Second, we advance the literature by specifying cognitive mecha- Nyberg, & Thatcher, 2015; Groysberg, 2010).
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR HIGH PERFORMERS AT WORK 847
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of social consequences for high performers.
2014). Individuals go to work for two primary goals: to accomplish individuals actively assess their environment to identify advan-
tasks and to get rewarded. High performers can affect both of these tages and challenges to their personal, social, and material re-
goals. Therefore, upward comparisons can serve a pragmatic and sources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). While studies have often discussed
informative function for peers as they scan their environment to social comparison in the abstract or limited its application to
acquire and maintain access to valued resources at work. personal features of the self, like self-esteem, COR theory allows
Scholars offer theory and compelling evidence that two cogni- us to tangibly specify and broaden consideration of resources to
tive paths stem from upward comparisons with high performers— social and material resources (e.g., respect and tools) in addition to
one that is beneficial and one that is threatening to the self. Studies personal resources (e.g., time or energy; Gorgievski, Halbesleben,
chronicle many depleting aspects of upward social comparisons & Bakker, 2011; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Integration of
but also highlight its salutary effects (Mussweiler, 2003a, 2003b; these theories therefore builds more comprehensive understanding
Mussweiler & Strack, 2000; Wood, 1989). Compelling arguments of how peers evaluate of high performers’ impact on resources.
and evidence suggest individuals regularly seek upward compari- The COR framework roots to rational principles of resource
sons because they can be informative and motivating, as well as maximization and assumes peers are strategically motivated to
improve one’s view of self (Collins, 1996). Research indeed sug- accrue and protect their resources, which include anything viewed
gests comparison can prompt peers to make favorable assimila- by individuals as valuable to their goal achievement (Halbesleben,
tions with their colleagues (i.e., highlight shared characteristics, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Hobfoll, 2002). It
consider benefits, and improve their view of self) rather than has been predominately applied to understand psychological phe-
merely to draw unfavorable contrasts (i.e., highlight differences in nomena especially in the stress literature, but originally functioned
characteristics, sensitize threats, and deplete their view of self; as a theory of motivation to explain how resource perceptions
Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen, & Dakof, 1990; Collins, drive individual behavior (Halbesleben et al., 2014) and can be
2000). Studies of upward comparison have also yielded inconsis- useful in explaining employee motivation at work (Gorgievski &
tent results on whether they benefit or threaten (Brown, Ferris, Hobfoll, 2008). Like social comparison theory, conservation of
Heller, & Keeping, 2007). We expect that this can be resolved in resources theory specifies two processes that drive behavior: Ac-
part by relaxing the assumption that upward comparisons trigger cumulation and conservation of resources (Halbesleben et al.,
either a process of assimilation or contrast for peers. Rather, 2014). Accumulation of resources describes the process of oppor-
self-comparisons with those we spend substantial time with are tunistic attention and efforts to gain future resources while con-
complex and likely to prompt both assimilation and contrast servation of resources describes the parallel process of vigilant
(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Mussweiler, 2003a). Consequently, we attention and efforts to protect current resources.
expect that peers make comparisons with high performers, per- We integrate these two theories to explain how high performers
ceiving them as both beneficial and threatening. Such comparisons instigate parallel yet paradoxical social comparison processes for
can create tension by being both inspirational and enhancing while peers in order to serve their utilitarian goals of obtaining and
also painful and frustrating (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Muss- protecting resources. On one hand, peers are likely to assimilate
weiler & Strack, 2000). with high performers and see them as beneficial to their accumu-
These two social comparison processes can be further informed lation of resources. On the other hand, peers are likely to draw
by conservation of resources theory (COR), which explains that contrast to high performers and see them threatening to their
conservation of resources. Simply stated, we expect peers to rec- Upward comparisons with high performers not only impact
ognize that high performers have the potential to enhance their peers’ view of their personal resources (e.g., self-concept) but also
resources and increase the size of the workgroup resource pool but their social and material resources. Conservation of resources
are also likely deplete their resources by earning disproportion- theory explains that peers actively scan their environment to com-
ately large portions of the resource pool. The independence of pare and identify sources of potential resource acquisition (i.e.,
these two processes is important as social relationships rarely lie accumulation mechanism; Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Possessing val-
on a continuum from negative to positive but rather comprise of ued capabilities increases high performers’ potential helpfulness,
simultaneously helpful and harmful experiences and interactions and therefore their instrumental value to their peers (Van der Vegt,
(Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Duffy et al., 2002; Uchino et al., Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006). High performers can improve
2004). peers’ access to resources such as expertise, opportunities for
In turn, peer perceptions shape their behaviors toward high learning, and advice (e.g., Kram, 1988; Raat, Kuks, van Hell, &
performers. Consistent with both theories, strong comparisons Cohen-Schotanus, 2013; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer,
beget strong behavioral responses (Buunk & Mussweiler, 2001; 2001). They also bring benefits to the workgroup such as elevated
Hobfoll, 2001). We expect peers to behave in ways that maximize reputation, more customers or clients, goal accomplishment, and
resources: (a) offering support to nurture relationships with high greater leader satisfaction with the workgroup (e.g., Lam et al.,
performers as they may benefit peers’ resources and (b) undermin- 2011; Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Based upon these arguments and
ing to reduce the influence of high performers as they may threaten past studies, we submit:
peers’ resources. While these behaviors are unlikely to occur
contemporaneously, they both can occur at different points in time Hypothesis 1: As an individual’s relative job performance
within same relationship (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002; Hobman et al., increases, peers are more likely to perceive the individual as
2009). beneficial to their own resources.
As peers consider high performers beneficial to their own re-

Beneficial Upward Comparisons With sources, we expect that they will be inclined to offer them more
High Performers social support. Social support refers to emotional and instrumental
assistance such as advice, care, help, and opportunities (Hobfoll,
Scholars question why individuals would gravitate toward up- 2009; Hobfoll, Freedy, Lane, & Geller, 1990). It builds positive
ward comparisons if they were only threatening, and instead con- interpersonal relationships and is argued to be universally valuable
tend that they can often be self-enhancing (e.g., Collins, 1996; (Hobfoll & London, 1986). While mostly studied in the context of
Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). Assimilation has been comparatively socioemotional bonds or as a buffer to stress, social support serves
neglected in upward comparison research but evidence points not just an instrument of goodwill but also a tactic to foster
toward the possibility that peers’ upward comparison can foster connection (Duffy et al., 2002), to increase sense of similarity
feelings of connection when considered the context of real rela- (Wood, 1996) and to obtain and maintain future access to re-
tionships (Locke & Nekich, 2000). For instance, consider a col- sources (Hobfoll, 2009).
league who consistently exceeds expectations, draws new clients, Peers’ judgment of high performers as beneficial to resources
or has been exceptionally trained. Working with such an individual may motivate them to present themselves as similarly valuable in
may prove beneficial to one’s own self-image and ability to excel order to reduce disparity of the comparison, build a sense of
at work. similarity, and improve self-evaluation (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007;
Upward comparison with high performers can also motivate and Buunk et al., 1990). Research offers indirect evidence that peers
inspire peers (Taylor & Lobel, 1989). Festinger (1954) himself are inclined to offer support to others who they consider beneficial
noted that upward comparison may be especially beneficial to to their own reputation (Cialdini et al., 1976). Similarly, peers may
peers when the magnitude of the difference is substantial, offering consider it beneficial for their own image to work to form sup-
peers something aspirational to model. To protect their self- portive relationships with high performers and to bolster their
interest, peers can associate and identify closely with high per- association (Long, Baer, Colquitt, Outlaw, & Dhensa-Kahlon,
formers, which enables favorable reflection toward their success 2015).
and assimilation (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Collins, 1996). Peers Consistent with this view, conservation of resources theory
may bask in the glory of superior others in order to maintain contends that individuals use social support strategically for the
positive self-evaluation, especially in long-term relationships and purpose of accumulating additional resources (Hobfoll, 2002).
stable workgroups (Cialdini et al., 1976; Tesser, 1988; Tesser, Evidence supports the view that employees prefer to socially
Millar, & Moore, 1988). Research has offered indirect evidence invest in relationships with individuals who can bring them the
that peers assimilate with the success of others in their workgroup most value (Gibbons, 2004). Studies have also shown peers enact
(e.g., Brewer & Weber, 1994), especially if they expect to derive support behaviors in particular to build relationships and invest in
benefits (Collins, 1996). Such assimilations can boost peers’ sense connections with individuals who can benefit their resources (Hal-
of status and self-image (Brown, Novick, Lord, & Richards, 1992). besleben et al., 2014; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2015). For these
Studies have also shown that—when the group context is salient— reasons, we propose:
upward comparison with high performers can positively impact
personal resources of peers (Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, Hypothesis 2: As an individual’s relative job performance
2002). Similarly, in a study of physicians, upward comparisons increases, peers are more likely to offer social support to the
with high performing colleagues evoked better views of self individual, mediated by their perceptions that the individual
(Buunk, Zurriaga, Peiro, Nauta, & Gosalvez, 2005). benefits their own resource access.
Threatening Upward Comparisons With the influence of others in a calculated, discreet way and can have
High Performers debilitating effects on targets’ wellbeing, work attitudes, and be-
haviors (Duffy et al., 2002; Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino,
While upward comparison can be beneficial and useful at work, 2012). We expect peers undermine high performers to diffuse
they can simultaneously threaten (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; frustrations that stem from unfavorable comparison, to protect
Collins, 1996). When peers make comparisons with high perform- their resources, and to erode high performers’ influence.
ers, they are more likely to view own performance as sharply Management research offered early evidence that peers will lash
lacking (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). High performers draw addi- out against high performers who they viewed as threatening (Dal-
tional attention and may highlight relative deprivation or disparity ton, 1948; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). More recently, stud-
(Festinger, 1954; Lockwood, 2002). Substantial evidence has dem- ies have fruitfully applied social comparison theory to explain high
onstrated that upward comparison can spark threat perceptions performer victimization. Jensen, Patel, and Raver (2014) showed
(e.g., Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993). In addition to concern for their that peers covertly victimize high performers. Kim and Glomb’s
comparative social and material resources, peer self-evaluation of (2014) research indicated that this can be partly explained by
their personal resources, such as self-esteem or confidence, may
peers’ feelings of envy— common reaction to unfavorable social

suffer (Collins, 1996). For example, in their study of dyads,
comparisons (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Gilbert, Giesler, &

research by Lam et al. (2011) suggested that upward comparisons Morris, 1995). We expect envy may operate as a key driver of peer
with high performers damaged peers’ self-view when they could reactions in cases when comparisons with high performers affect
not foresee similar performance. one’s personal self-evaluation, because envy is rooted to feelings
Conservation of resources can extend understanding of how of inferiority (Duffy, Shaw, & Schaubroeck, 2008). While related,
upward comparison with high performers can trigger peers’ con- feelings of envy and perceptions of threat are distinct psycholog-
cern for resources. It explains that, in addition to accumulating ical experiences (Tai, Narayanan, & McAllister, 2012). When
resources from others, individuals are motivated to actively scan comparisons affect threat perceptions related to resource impact,
their environment to protect themselves against those who could they reflect a cognitive calculus and imply no self-judgment of
threaten resources (i.e., conservation mechanism; Hobfoll, 1989, inferiority but rather focus on individual utility (Hobfoll, 2001).
2001). As job performance often serves as a chief determinant of Still, both feelings of envy and perceptions of threat create stress
resource allocation, high performers have the potential to earn for peers, which they will be motivated to relieve (Hobfoll, 1989).
substantial resources and prompt peers to see them as threatening. For example, to cope with unfavorable comparisons, peers may be
High performers may be awarded preferred tasks, draw attention of prone to depersonalize high performers by labeling them as strange
others, and tax the overall resource pool for their workgroups (e.g., outliers (i.e., “geniuses;” Alicke, LoSchiavo, Zerbst, & Zhang,
Bauer & Green, 1996). High performers commonly have first 1997), vilifying them without basis (Feather, 2012), or avoiding
choice of new project assignments, are selected for training op- them (Tesser, 1988).
portunities, get assigned to serve preferred customers, and attract Peers will defend against perceived threats even if it means
favor from leaders (e.g., Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Managers may engaging in dysfunctional behaviors or behaving out of character
schedule new customers with high performers to capitalize on first (Hobfoll, 1989). Consistent with this, research has shown that
impressions and build their customer base, or they may publicly when employees experience identity threats, they are more likely
praise high performers as paragons of customer service. Evidence to lash out against the source of threat (Aquino & Douglas, 2003;
has shown high performers spark worry from peers that their Tai et al., 2012). By undermining high performers, potential gains
performance will be judged as comparatively lacking and that for peers include blowing off steam (Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2002),
productivity expectations will increase without commensurate deterring future threats (e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and re-
compensation (Dalton, 1948; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). ducing high performers’ influence (Duffy et al., 2002). For these
With their potential to earn favor and extra resources and, as a reasons, we propose:
result, drain finite resources (e.g., i-deals; Rousseau, Ho, & Green-
berg, 2006), we expect social comparison with high performers Hypothesis 4: As an individual’s relative job performance
triggers peer concern of resource threat. Taken together, we pro- increases, peers are more likely to undermine the individual,
pose: mediated by their perceptions that the individual threatens
their own resource access.
Hypothesis 3: As an individual’s relative job performance
increases, peers are more likely to perceive the individual as
threatening to their own resources. Making Comparisons Salient: Cooperative
Climate as a Moderator
When peers’ social comparisons draw contrast and they evaluate
high performers as more threatening, their motivation to protect Another goal of our study is to consider how workgroup context
resources increases (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Antisocial behav- moderates peer reactions to their comparisons and affects their
iors are common retaliatory responses to threat (O’Leary-Kelly, likelihood to express their perceptions as social support and un-
Duffy, & Griffin, 2000; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). A form of dermining behaviors. We focus on climate because it reflects
antisocial behavior, social undermining, seems particularly rele- perceptions of the immediate context and can be intentionally
vant as it describes behavior intended to impede others’ ability to shaped through practices, routines, and rewards (Ostroff, Kinicki,
establish and sustain effective relationships, to achieve work suc- & Muhammad, 2013; Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011). Work-
cess, and to maintain a strong reputation (Duffy et al., 2002; Duffy, group climate is also likely to facilitate or constrain the extent to
Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006). It is designed to weaken which peers act upon their individual perceptions and motivations
(Chen & Kanfer, 2006). We considered cooperative climate par- norms. Offering greater support to high performers may appear as
ticularly germane to our investigation because this type of climate unnecessarily helpful to individuals who do not need it or inap-
guides members’ social interactions and affects extent to which propriately instrumental since peers are supposed to get and give
members view their own personal goals, interests, and resources as support indiscriminately rather than invest in certain relationships
intertwined with those of others (Deutsch, 1949; Markus & Ki- over others. In contrast, self-interest is common in low cooperative
tayama, 1991). Cooperative climates describe workgroup contexts climates, where offering support to others based upon a rational
that emphasize positive interdependence of goals among group calculus seems more permissible. Finally, in high cooperative
members and achievement through group solidarity (Deutsch, climates, when peers view high performers as more beneficial this
1949, 1973; Tjosvold, 1988). They value solidarity, stress har- may simply meet their expected level of cooperative exchange
mony, and operate as a proximal transmitters of structural factors norms since individual are insensitive to gains above expectations.
like rewards systems (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Wagner, 1995). Even if peers view high performers as exceeding their level of
Such contexts can improve learning information sharing, coordi- production for the group, evidence suggests that going above and
nation, and productivity in groups (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & beyond may earn them no added benefit (Bercovitz, Jap, & Nick-
Neale, 1998; Hill, Bartol, Tesluk, & Langa, 2009; Johnson, erson, 2006).
Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, We expect high cooperative climates also amplify peer motiva-
2004). With such benefits to workgroup processes and perfor- tion to minimize individuals who comparatively standout—not just
mance, it is easy to understand why organizations value and to protect individual interests but also on behalf of the group. High
increasingly encourage cooperation. However, organizations also performers represent deviance from performance norms, which
simultaneously value high performers—individuals who positively may be view as a threat to the commonality and solidarity pre-
deviate from their groups. We contend that these practices may be scribed by cooperative climates (Dentler & Erikson, 1959). Peers
at odds, creating a problematic social situation for high performers target group members who deviate from norms, especially when
by reducing their relative social advantage (i.e., support) while
norms are strong (e.g., Levine, 1989; Tajfel, 1981) and collective
increasing their relative social disadvantage (i.e., undermining).
selves are activated (Brewer & Chen, 2007). Cooperative climates
Core to our arguments is the relevance of cooperative climate to
may also color peers’ judgment of high performers’ contributions.
peers’ upward social comparisons. We expect that cooperative
In low cooperative climates, efforts to differentiate one’s perfor-
climates shift peers’ own frame of reference from personal interest
mance qualifies as a reasonable pursuit. However, in climates that
in their individualized selves to mutual interests in their social
prime solidarity and positive interdependence, “stand out” contri-
selves. Brewer and Gardner (1996) conceptually distinguished
butions could be viewed as self-seeking, selfishly excessive, and
three representations of the self, which include individual (i.e.,
aimed inappropriately at differentiating oneself. Lending indirect
focused on uniqueness and motivated by self-interest and indepen-
support to this, Kim and Glomb (2010) found that peers were more
dence), relational (i.e., focused on relationships and motivated by
likely to victimize talented coworkers who they considered agentic
responsiveness to others), and collective (i.e., focused on the group
and motivated by obligation to the group welfare and conformity). and motivated by self-interested. The mistreatment of “rate bust-
Fundamentally, activation of social views of self implies a broad- ers” also occurred in a highly cooperative environment—the
ening of one’s identity and motivations beyond self-interest. We unionized factory floor (Dalton, 1948).
expect that cooperative climates activate peers’ collective view of A potential alternative argument might be that cooperative cli-
self and facilitate motivation to protect shared values and serve as mates amplify the penalty for the aggressing peers and therefore
good representatives for the group (Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Chen, may constrain, rather than facilitate, motivation to act upon threat
2007). In priming peers’ broader self-view, such contexts amplify perceptions. However, it is important to recognize that cooperative
motivations to act in support of solidarity and to reinforce com- norms do not necessarily prescribe niceties but rather emphasize
monality over uniqueness (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Hogg & collaboration, advocate commonality, and expect peers to weigh
Abrams, 1988). Cooperative climates may also sensitize peers to group interest over self-interest and differentiating oneself. Re-
intragroup differences and norm violations and make them more lated, research has shown that peers bully others more aggressively
prone to discount dyadic relationships with colleagues, which get when they believe it is on behalf of the group (Einarsen, Hoel,
eclipsed by a focus on common membership (Brewer & Chen, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). In addition, in more cooperative contexts,
2007; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). peers may depersonalize individual relationships with others
Expectations to both give and receive support are higher in (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). We expect this can desensitize peers to
cooperative climates. In high cooperative climates, support is their own antisocial behavior and enable them to self-license
prevailing—not something to be earned, rationally exchange, or lashing out against members who detract from group solidarity.
offered for personal gain. Instead, members are expected to offer Because frequent interactions and closer collaboration are com-
one another support based upon norms rather than merit or culti- mon to cooperative climates (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Dutton &
vation of unique or individually useful bonds (Tjosvold, 1988). In Heaphy, 2003), peers also may have more opportunities to under-
effect, this erases the relative advantage of high performers to earn mine threatening high performers. Upon these premises and related
support. Supporting this idea, studies demonstrated that coopera- evidence, we contend:
tive contexts positively related to peers providing support regard-
less of individual differences (Chen, Huang, & Tjosvold, 2008). Hypothesis 5: A higher cooperative climate penalizes high
We suggest cooperative climates constrain motivation to build performers, such that it (a) weakens the indirect effect of
supportive relationships with high performers in particular since relative performance on social support from peers, through
peer attempts to gain resources by association defy cooperative peer perceptions of benefit to resources, and (b) strengthens
the indirect effect of relative performance on undermining Managers from all 120 salons participated. At Time 1, 395
from peers, through peer perceptions of threat to resources. employees participated (95% response rate). At Time 2, 352 em-
ployees participated (85% response rate). Our phenomenon centers
on social dynamics within workgroups. Therefore, we included
Overview of Studies only salons that had at least three stylists (the minimum size to
We tested these hypotheses in two studies (IRB approval: theoretically be considered a workgroup; cf. Glomb & Liao, 2003;
395402–1, University of Maryland; 1411S55163, University of Levine & Moreland, 1990; Simmel, 1950). The final sample in-
Minnesota). First, we tested our model in a field study of a large cluded 936 dyadic ratings from 350 stylists within 105 salons.
chain of Taiwanese salons (Study 1). Second, we conducted an Stylists were predominately female (93%), averaged 28-years-old,
experiment with U.S. business school students (Study 2) in order and 86% held at least a bachelor’s degree. Token gifts to express
to (a) test effects in another task and country context; (b) causally our gratitude for study participation were given to everyone who
link high performers to increased support, undermining, and peer volunteered (valued at approximately $10).
perceptions of benefit and threat; and (c) ensure threat perceptions Study 1 data were collected in tandem with the data used in
positively predicted undermining over and above known mediators Dong, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, and Campbell’s (2015) study on the
(i.e., envy; Kim & Glomb, 2014). effects of customer and leader empowerment on service employee
creativity during customer-service encounters. These studies make
different theoretical contributions and examine unrelated phenom-
Study 1 ena. We sampled salon managers and stylists in both investiga-
tions. Though, in the Dong et al. (2015) article, we used
experienced-sampling of stylists and customer-rated dependent
Method
variables. There is no overlap among relationships or variables,
Sample, design, and procedures. We conducted a time- with one exception: use of team size as a control variable in each
lagged field study, collecting multilevel, multisource data from study.
414 stylists working for 120 salons in northern Taiwan. The salons Measures. All measures were translated into Chinese and then
offered numerous advantages for testing our theoretical model. back-translated by two independent bilingual translators to ensure
First, the context involved high levels of interaction. Stylists work they retained conceptual meaning (Brislin, 1980). We used Likert-
in an open space, which makes performance indicators (i.e., cus- scales anchored at 1 (not at all) and 5 (to a very great extent),
tomer satisfaction and output of service treatment) discernable to unless otherwise specified.
peers and interactions frequent and visible. This also enables Job performance. Managers rated every stylists’ job perfor-
opportunities for stylists to experience both support and undermin- mance from 1 (needs much improvement) to 5 (excellent) on
ing (Duffy et al., 2002). Second, salons require orchestration of Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998) four-item measure for job
individual and group tasks among coworkers in order to effectively role performance (e.g., “quality of work” and “quantity of work;”
serve customers. Stylists serve their customers mostly by them- ! " .89).
selves during the service encounters; however, they also frequently We chose manager-rated performance over peer-rated perfor-
work with one another on social, technical, and administrative mance for several reasons. First, this design reduced common
activities (e.g., client consultations or learning new techniques). method bias, which could have inflated the effects between peer-
Third, examining this phenomenon was of practical value to our rated performance and peer-rated benefit and threat perceptions
partnering organization, which actively sought to understand in- (cf. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, our
fluencers of employee turnover—an issue that perennially plagues arguments hinge upon peer social comparisons that influence their
the industry. Fourth, in contrast with the common U.S. salon evaluations of others’ impact on resources. Because managers
business model, Taiwanese stylists are more interdependent (i.e., mete out a large proportion of work resources, we expected their
they cotrain and provide more backup of one another) and tipping judgments to be consequential. Third, manager review of perfor-
is uncommon. Instead, stylists are compensated based upon both mance maximizes external validity given its widespread use in
their individual monthly sales and their salon’s overall sales. This organizations (Smither, 2012). Because we used manager ratings
hybrid incentive system creates a balanced environment where of individual performers, we modeled job performance at the
peers may consider high performers as both beneficial (e.g., con- individual-level. We also verified the assumption that peers could
tribution to store sales) and threatening (e.g., competition for discern performance differences within workgroups by assessing
customers) to resources. peer-rated job performance, which correlated significantly with
Upon securing organizational approval, trained research assis- manager-rated job performance, r " .58, p # .01.
tants visited all of the 120 salons located in the salon chain’s Perceived threat and benefit to resources. Guided by the
northern region of Taiwan to invite managers and employees to application of Spreitzer’s (1996) access to resources scale into a
participate in a research study. At Time 1, research assistants network assessment format (e.g., Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden,
collected manager-rated job performance and stylists’ self- 2001), we asked peers to rate the extent to which each individual
reported demographics as well as workgroup cooperative climate. in their workgroup benefitted and threatened their access to ma-
Research assistants returned 8 weeks later to administer Time 2 terial and social resources at work. Two items measured perceived
measures, which captured perceptions of benefit and threat as well benefit (e.g., “is a beneficial source of resources to me, like
as experiences of support and undermining using a network ap- customer contacts, ideas, and supplies;” ! " .77) and three items
proach. Responses were kept confidential from managers and measured perceived threat (e.g., “uses more of his/her fair share of
organizational leaders. the groups resources, like supplies, space, and time with the boss;”
! " .71). In the salon context, salient material resources included group-mean centered it to match our theory (i.e., individual’s
products (e.g., hair care products), space for customers and work- relative performance within the workgroup; cf. Hofmann & Gavin,
stations, shared equipment (e.g., hair dryers, shampoo stations), 1998). Age, education, and tenure were treated as Level 2 control
salon bonus eligibility, and preferred shifts. Salient social re- variables (i.e., performer characteristics). We modeled cooperative
sources are things such as reputation and popularity, favor with climate and salon size at the workgroup level (Level 3).
colleagues, preferred customer assignments, referrals, time and We tested hypotheses using three-level random coefficient
attention from one’s manager, and occasionally salon recognition modeling in HLM 7.0 (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) to
from organizational leaders. model and account for the nested structure of these data (Hof-
Support and undermining. We relied upon a network ap- mann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000). Following Aiken and West
proach to assess performer-rated support and undermining. We (1991), we first entered control variables, adding relative job
used five items from the social support scale created by Barrera, performance (our distal predictor), then mediators, and then
Sandler, and Ramsay (1981; e.g., “let you know he/she will be interactions in subsequent models. We assessed the indirect
around if you need assistance”). We chose these items based upon effects of relative performance on peer social responses, relying
strength of factor loadings and contextual relevance to work rela- on the approach described by MacKinnon, Lockwood, and
tionships. The internal consistency of items was high and compa- Williams (2004) and the interactive tool created by Selig and
rable with studies using longer variations of the scale (! " .92). Preacher (2008) to create a confidence interval using R. This
We captured social undermining using Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, tool facilitated bias-corrected bootstrapping using 10,000 resa-
Johnson, and Pagon’s (2006) seven-item scale (e.g., “belittled you mples to test whether indirect effects differed significantly from
or your ideas; ! " .97). zero.
Cooperative climate. We used the cooperative psychological
climate scale (e.g., “there is a high level of cooperation between
Results
stylists;” Chatman & Flynn, 2001; ! " .84). Interrater agreement
(i.e., rwg(j); cf. James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) was high, averag- Test of direct and indirect effects. Table 1 summarizes
ing .93 across the 105 salons (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). ICC(1) descriptive statistics and Table 2 summarizes analyses. We first
was .25, indicating group membership could explain 25% of the assessed whether individual relative job performance was sig-
variance in cooperative climate. The reliability of the group means, nificantly related to peers’ perceptions. Performance positively
ICC(2), was .53, F(104, 245) " 2.11, p # .001, which supports our predicted coworkers’ perceptions of both benefit ($ " .17, p #
expectation that cooperative climate varied meaningfully between .01) and threat ($ " .07, p # .05) to resources, supporting
salons. Together these statistics supported aggregation to the work- Hypotheses 1 and 3, respectively. In support of Hypothesis 2,
group level (i.e., salon-level; Bliese, 2000). being viewed as beneficial to resources was positively related to
Control variables. To rule out alternative explanations, we the support performers received from peers ($ " .06, p # .05)
controlled for performer age, education, and tenure, as well as and the test indicated a significant, positive indirect effect for
salon size at the workgroup level. Older, more educated, and relative job performance on support (.01; CI 95% [.003, .016]).
longer-tenured performers are likely to have more status, seniority, Similarly, being perceived as threatening to resources posi-
or perceived expertise (Berger, Fiske, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977; tively related to the undermining performers experienced from
Bunderson, 2003), which we considered important to isolate from peers ($ " .06, p # .01) and calculations indicated a signifi-
performance to ensure performance rather that status was driving cant, positive indirect effect for relative job performance on
peer perceptions and behaviors. Longer-tenured workers are also undermining (.006; CI 95% [.001, .011]), which supported
slightly more likely to experience antisocial behavior at work Hypothesis 4.
(Bowling & Beehr, 2006). We controlled for workgroup size Moderating effects of cooperative climate. Hypotheses 5
because research has linked larger groups to higher levels of suggested that high cooperative climates would carry less favor-
undermining (Duffy et al., 2006) and odd-numbered groups with able treatment for high performers by (a) weakening the link
greater cohesion compared with even-numbered groups (Menon & between peer perceived benefit and support, and (b) strengthening
Phillips, 2011). the link between peer perceived threat and undermining. Findings
Analytical strategy. We specified a three-level model, with demonstrated that cooperative climate moderated the benefit—
the multiple peers (Level 1) of each employee (i.e., the focal support link ($ " %.11, p # .05) but not the threat— undermining
performer) nested within that employee (Level 2), and the multiple link ($ " .04, ns). To understand this cross-level interaction, we
employees of a workgroup nested within that group (i.e., salon; plotted the simple slopes (cf. Sibley, 2008; Figure 2a), and calcu-
Level 3). Unless otherwise specified, we grand-mean centered lated the indirect effect of individual job performance on peer
predictors. Perceived benefit, perceived threat, support, undermin- support at high and low levels of cooperative climate (see Table 3).
ing, and peer performance reside at the dyadic level (Level 1). The High cooperative climate resulted in more support in general for
intercept-only models for support and undermining indicated that individuals, but high performers only earned additional support in
substantial variance resides at the dyadic, individual, and work- low cooperative climates (.02; CI 90% [.010, .030]). Results there-
group levels of analysis. For support, variance attributable to the fore supported Hypothesis 5a but not 5b.
relationship (Level 1) was 31%, to the performer (Level 2) was Exploratory analysis: Moderating effects of peer
51%, and to the workgroup (Level 3) was 18%. For undermining, performance. We explored whether peers’ own performance
variance attributable to the relationship (Level 1) was 73%, to the moderated their judgment and treatment of high performers. We
performer (Level 2) was 15%, and to the workgroup (Level 3) was offered no formal hypotheses, though expected that similarity in
12%. We modeled manager-rated performance at Level 2 and performance makes peers more prone to both support and under-
Table 1
Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Manager-rated job
performance 3.52 .80 (.89)
2. Perceived benefit to resources
(peer-reported) 3.53 .82 .12!! (.77)
3. Perceived threat to resources
(peer-reported) 2.96 .68 .07 !
.25!! (.71)
4. Social support (performer-
reported) 3.53 .82 %.01 .13!! %.12!! (.92)
5. Social undermining
(performer-reported) 1.77 .83 %.03 %.08 .14 !!
%.29!! (.97)
6. Performer age (in years) 28.30 6.74 .16!! .03 .09!! %.14!! .06 —
7. Performer tenure (in month) 80.98 61.42 .17!! .09! .06 %.10!! .03 .61!! —
8. Performer education level 2.09 .42 %.11!! %.12!! %.00 %.01 .01 %.23!! %.22!! —
9. Manager-rated job
performance 3.52 .80 .36 !!
%.06 %.01 .09 !
.00 %.06 %.01 %.05 (.89)
10. Salon size (number of stylists) 4.13 1.09 .06 .14!! .08!! .13!! %.06 .21!! .37!! %.17!! .06 —
11. Cooperative climate 3.92 .59 %.05 .06 %.01 .27!! %.25!! %.07! %.07! .01 %.04 .01 (.84)
Note. N " 936 dyadic ratings. Correlations summarize bivariate relationships at the dyadic level and should be interpreted with caution as they fail to
account for the nested nature of the data. Individual and workgroup variables were assigned down to Level 1. Internal consistencies display on the diagonal.
!
p # .05. !! p # .01.
mine high performers as they may more easily identity with them Study 2
but also consider high performers as more direct competition.
Findings indicated that peers’ perceptions of high performers (as
beneficial or threatening) and support to high performers did not Method
vary as a function of their own performance. However, results
Sample and design. Two-hundred and 84 undergraduate
revealed a significant interaction for peer performance on under-
business majors from a U.S. university participated in the study as
mining ($ " .04; p # .05). Test of simple slopes suggested high
a partial fulfillment of their course research requirement. Students
performers experienced significantly more undermining from high
were informed that they would work together in virtual teams. We
performing peers ($ " .09; p # .01) than from low performing
peers ($ " .03; p # .01; Figure 3). designed a virtual team context to maximize both experimental
control and psychological realism by enabling some early interac-
tion between members but then allowing us to script fabricated
Discussion messages in later rounds. There were 80 teams with three or four
The results from the field study supported a broadened view of members each (M " 3.55). We designed a 2 (focal performer: high
social consequences of high performance.2 As relative job perfor- vs. average) & 2 (cooperative climate: high vs. low) between-
mance increased, individuals experienced more support and un- subjects experiment. Participants worked to complete rounds of
dermining from peers. These effects were mediated by peer per- critical thinking and analytical reasoning tasks comprised of ques-
ceptions that high performers were both beneficial and threatening tions made publically available from LSAT, GMAT, and Mensa
to work resources, respectively. In more cooperative climates, high tests.
performers’ advantage for earning support vanished. High per- Procedures. During the first 15 min, team members worked
forming (compared with low performing) peers victimized other together face-to-face in a conference room. We incentivized stu-
high performers significantly more. Findings are largely aligned dents to care about performance by explaining that the five top
with predictions. Nonetheless, we conducted a second study for performing teams earned cash ($150 for teams of three and $200
several important reasons. First, we wanted to constructively rep- for teams of four). Objective performance feedback was manipu-
licate the results in a different culture and task context to lated for the purpose of the study, but we also recorded actual
strengthen confidence in their generalizability. Second, while high scores to reward teams based upon merit at the end of the semester.
performance has been linked to victimization, studies to date have The experimenter asked participants to introduce themselves and
been correlational. We sought to establish a causal link between described the task. To prepare for the type of questions they would
high performance to social support and undermining. Third, we
wanted to objectively manipulate individual performance informa-
2
tion to rule out concerns that the phenomenon was driven by Findings are robust with and without control variables in the equations.
supervisor favoritism. Fourth, we viewed it as important to show We also captured customer-rated satisfaction across an average of 9.08
customer service encounters per stylist. When we reestimated all models
that performance affects peer perceptions and subsequent behav- with these customer satisfaction ratings in place of the manager-rated
iors over and above envy, an emotional reaction, which Kim and performance, all results held and are available upon request from the first
Glomb (2014) have linked to high performer victimization. author.
854
Table 2
Field Study Multilevel Hierarchical Linear Regression Results
Perceived benefit Perceived threat Support Undermining

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Variable $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE $ SE
!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
Intercept 3.47 (.05) 3.47 (.05) 2.91 (.04) 2.92 (.04) 3.46 (.05) 3.46 (.05) 3.48 (.05) 1.79 (.05) 1.79 (.05) 1.79 (.05)
Level 1–Dyadic
Perceived benefit to resources .06! (.03) .07!! (.02) %.06!! (.02) %.06!! (.02)
Perceived threat to resources %.07! (.03) %.08!! (.04) .06!! (.02) .06!! (.02)
Level 2–Individual (Performer)
Age %.00 (.01) %.01 (.01) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) %.01! (.01) %.01! (.01) %.02 (.01) .00 (.01) .00 (.01) .01 (.01)
Tenure .00!! (.00) .00! (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) %.00 (.00) %.00 (.00) %.00 (.00) .00 (.01) .00 (.00) .00 (.00)
Education level %.12! (.07) %.11! (.07) %.01 (.05) .01 (.05) %.03 (.10) %.03 (.09) %.01 (.11) .04 (.11) .03 (.11) %.02 (.10)
Job performance .17!! (.04) .07! (.03) %.04 (.06) %.07 (.06) %.10 (.07) %.09 (.07)
Level 3–Workgroup
Salon size .04 (.04) .05 (.05) .05 (.04) .05 (.04) .12!! (.05) .12!! (.05) .12!! (.04) %.04 (.05) %.04 (.05) %.04 (.04)
Cooperative climate .50! (.47) %.97! (.43)
Average Group Performance & Cooperative .26 (.51) %.42 (.48)
climate
Average Group Performance & Cooperative %.04 (.13) .12 (.13)
climate
Cross-level interactions
Job Performance & Cooperative Climate %.10 (.11) .20 (.18)
CAMPBELL, LIAO, CHUANG, ZHOU, AND DONG
Perceived Benefit & Cooperative Climate !.11! (.07) .02 (.08)

Perceived Threat & Cooperative Climate .12 (.10) .04 (.07)
Pseudo R2a .02! .03! .00 .02! .01! .03! .05! .00 .04! .09!
Note. N " 936 (Level 1), 350 (Level 2), and 105 (Level 3). Coefficient estimations are fixed effects gammas ($) with robust standard errors. Coefficients corresponding to hypothesized relationships
are in bold.
a
Sum of total variance attributable to within and between variance components (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).
!
p # .05. !! p # .01 (one-tailed).
Figure 2. Simple Slopes of Interactions. (a) Effect of cooperative climate on benefit—support link (field
study). (b) Effect of cooperative climate on threat— undermining link (experimental study).
encounter when “collaborating virtually,” teams received practice These messages corresponded to the names of teammates that
questions to review and discuss. Next, the experimenter directed they worked with face-to-face.
participants to an adjoining room with individual workstations Before Round 1 of the task, each participant was presented with
(i.e., cubicles with computers) and told them to log in to “rejoin a unique task strategy (e.g., how to identify faulty assumptions,
their teammates virtually.” In reality, they completed the remain- how to efficiently eliminate incorrect answers) and informed that
der of the study as individuals. sharing what they learned may help team performance. Partici-
In the simulated virtual team environment, participants were in- pants could actually interact and share strategies with team mem-
structed on how to “log in to be connected to their team members.” bers at three points in time using Google group chat: After learning
Preset, timed text appeared as instant messages from an “administra- their unique task strategies and after the first two task rounds. All
tor” and guided participants through tasks with periodic instructions participants completed three regular task rounds and one bonus
and messages, including group questions or opinion polls. Members task round. We randomly assigned one member of each team (i.e.,
saw their own responses and scripted messages feigned to be from Member 1) to the role of focal performer and randomly manipu-
teammates to legitimize the ruse that they were virtually connected. lated his or her performance (i.e., average vs. high). Because these
Table 3
Effect of Performance on Support Via Perceived Benefit at High and Low Levels of Cooperative Climate
Stage Effect
First (a) Second (b) Direct (c=) Indirect (a ! b)
Moderator Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate CI
Cooperative climate
High('1 SD) .18!! (.05) .01 (.02) %.07 (.06) .00 [%.004, .008]
Low (%1 SD) .15!! (.04) .13!! (.02) %.05 (.06) .02!! [.010, .030]
Note. N " 936 (Level 1), 350 (Level 2), and 105 (Level 3). 90% confidence internals for indirect effects (a ! b) are based upon 5,000 Monte Carlo
replications using R.
!!
p # .01 (two-tailed).
members were part of the treatment rather than exposed to it, we erative climate rather than competitive because aspects of the task
removed their data from analyses. and rewards also remained cooperative (i.e., success of workgroup
Manipulations. members’ could promote participants’ own goal attainment;
Performance. The focal performer’s performance scores Deutsch, 1949, 1973). In doing so, we sought to reflect a balanced
were similar to the peers’ average scores in the control (i.e., mix of cooperative and competitive aspects common to most
average performer) condition and notably higher than the peers’ workgroups (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000; Tjosvold, 1998)
average score in the experimental (i.e., high performer) condi- and those of Study 1 workgroups.
tion. All other members’ (i.e., participants) performance scores First, an authority figure (i.e., the experimenter) described vary-
were comparable across conditions (please see Appendix). Per- ing levels of cooperative values for how teams might best work
formance scores of all members were shown on the computer together. One version of the script highlighted high cooperative
screen after each round. interactions and the other low cooperative interactions. Sample
Cooperative climate. We manipulated high versus low coop- text included:
erative climate by following the multipronged approaches advo-
Virtual teams make communications more difficult, so be sure to
cated by studies that have contrasted cooperative with competitive
devote some time to collaborative discussion/spirited debate” . . .
climates (e.g., Hill et al., 2009; Tjosvold, Sun, & Wan, 2005; van “collective collaboration/healthy competition within the team is
Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 2001). While the low fine—just make sure you complete your responsibilities.
cooperative climate condition signaled more competitive norms
and rewards (i.e., success of workgroup members could inhibit Second, we contrasted the reward structures to reinforce varying
participants’ own goal attainment), we described it as low coop- levels of cooperative climate across conditions. In the high coop-
Figure 3. Simple slopes of interaction. Effect of peer performance on performer performance— undermining
link (field study, exploratory analysis).
erative condition, members of top performing teams evenly split and achieved high agreement, rwg " .90, and reliability, ICC(2) "
the cash prize, $50 per person. In the low cooperative condition, .93, so we averaged these ratings.
members of top performing teams qualified for the cash prize, then Alternative mechanism: Envy. To ensure our mechanisms
rewards were allocated base upon each members’ performance predicted responses to high performers over and above emotional
relative to the group, ranging from $15 to $110 per person. Evenly reactions, we also measured peers’ felt envy after Round 2 using
split rewards focused members toward cooperative, team-oriented Schaubroeck and Lam’s (2004) four-item scale. Items were “I
interaction, while the differentiated rewards focused individuals envy this person’s task performance,” “I feel inferior to this
more toward maximization of their own outcomes (Hill et al., person’s performance,” “This person’s success in the task makes
2009). me resent him/her,” and “feelings of envy toward this person
Measures. tormented me.” (! " .77).
Perception of benefit and threat to resources. After Round 2 Performance differences. To verify that participants were at-
feedback, we used the same scale and approach as Study 1 to tentive to differences in performance across conditions, we asked
assess the extent to which peers perceived other members of their them about the extent to which each member “performed better
team as beneficial or threatening to their own resources (1 " not than most team members” (1 " disagree strongly; 6 " agree
at all, 6 " to a very great extent; ! " .88 and ! " .74, strongly).
respectively). Cooperative climate. Participants reported cooperative cli-
Support. While socioemotional forms of helping were un- mate on a 7-point scale using the same measure as Study 1 (! "
likely to naturally emerge in the lab, we objectively observed two .84).
proxies for peer support toward the focal performer. First, we
captured whether participants would offer help to the performer. Results
After Round 2, participants were messaged that they finished the
round early but two members were still working. The administrator Manipulation checks. Consistent with our manipulation, par-
then asked participants which member they would like to offer ticipants reported that the focal performer performed better in the
help: Either the focal performer (coded as 1) or another peer experimental condition compared with the control condition (M "
5.13 vs. M " 3.80; p # .01). Similarly, participants reported
(coded as 0). Second, we assessed whether participants would offer
significantly higher perceptions of cooperative climate in the high
an opportunity to the focal performer. After Round 3, participants
versus the low cooperative climate condition (M " 5.07 vs. M "
were told that they qualified for a bonus round and were asked to
4.74; p # .05).
choose one member to join them: The focal performer (coded as 1)
Hypothesis testing. Table 4 displays descriptive statistics for
or another peer (coded as 0). The message explained that each
Study 2. To test hypotheses, we used OLS regression for contin-
member would perform as an individual in the bonus round, the
uous dependent variables and logistic regression for binary out-
invited person would not help them or be able to receive help from
comes (i.e., support variables). Following prescribed procedures
them, and points earned would augment individual scores only.
(Aiken & West, 1991), we regressed the dependent variable on
Therefore, participants themselves would not benefit directly;
performance condition, and then added more proximal predictors,
however, they may benefit indirectly by inviting the high per-
and interaction terms. Table 5 summarizes results.
former (who may better add to the team’s overall point total), First, results supported Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3: Partic-
which seems consistent with our theory and generalizable to how ipants in the high performer condition judged the focal performer
employees might benefit if they support high performers in orga- as significantly more beneficial and more threatening to their
nizations. resources (b " .32, p # .01 and b " .31, p # .01, respectively).
Undermining. As noted by experts on the phenomenon, the We assessed peers’ support toward the focal performer by first
base rate for undermining within a small window of time is low examining participants’ decision to offer help. However, partici-
(Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Like more affect-laden forms of pants were significantly less likely to help the focal performer in
support, it would be difficult to naturally observe undermining in the high performer condition compared with the control condition
the lab. Thus, we created a situation to facilitate variance in (b " %.68, SE " .16, p # .01; odds ratio " .51). Across both
undermining by simulating a chat between participants. Each peer conditions, perceptions of benefit did not significantly predict
was told they were paired with a teammate (not the focal per- offering help to the focal performer over another teammate
former) to complete a bonus round. Before the round, we told (b " %.17, ns; odds ratio " .85). This may be because peers could
participants that they could chat virtually with their partner. We not clearly see which choice was more valuable to them; they were
then sent scripted messages that appeared to be from the partner. unlikely to see one another in the future, which differs from the
The scripted chat mentioned the difficulty of the task and offered salon context. Second, we examined whether participants chose to
them a chance to respond. Then, the scripted partner messaged that offer an opportunity to the focal performer or another peer across
s/he thought the “[focal performer’s name] was kind of annoying.” high performer and control conditions. Results showed a positive
We captured peer responses to this undermining. Later, two raters relationship between benefit perceptions and support in the form of
coded responses using a 7-point scale. Responses ranged from offering an opportunity (b " .29, SE " .16, p # .05). The odds
actively defending the performer (e.g., “stop it, that’s not nice!;” ratio indicated that peers were 1.33 times more likely to invite the
coded as %3), to neutral responses (e.g., “why is that?;” coded 0), member they perceived as beneficial. The indirect effect for the
to actively undermining the performer (e.g., “hahaha, I feel the high performer condition on peer choice to offer the opportunity to
same way, he sucks;” coded as 3). Blind to condition, the first the focal performer was positive and significant (.093; CI 90%
author and a research assistant independently coded all responses [.01, .19]), which supported Hypothesis 2. Third, findings indi-
Table 4
Experimental Study Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Performance condition (%1 " average

performer; 1 " high performer) .01 1.00 —
2. Perceived benefit 3.53 1.15 .28!! (.88)
3. Perceived threat 2.30 1.07 .29!! .25!! (.74)
4. Felt envy 2.47 1.35 .40!! .08 .38!! (.77)
5. Support: Offered help .45 .50 %.32!! %.17!! %.05 %.08 —
6. Support: Offered opportunity .55 .50 .52!! .28!! .08 .15! %.16! —
7. Undermining .41 1.26 .19! %.07 .15! .13 .12 %.09 (.90)
8. Climate condition (0 " low
cooperative; 1 " high cooperative) .48 .50 .03 .21 !!
%.14 !
%.09 .09 %.09 %.12 —
9. Cooperative climate 4.83 1.23 %.15! .33!! .04 %.12 .02 .09 %.12 .15! (.84)
Note. N " 204; internal consistencies display on the diagonal (Cronbach’s alphas for multi-item variables and rwg for social undermining coding).
!
p # .05. !! p # .01 (two-tailed).
cated that threat perceptions positively predicted undermining controlling for perceived threat; however, the relationship between
(b " .19; p # .05). The indirect effect of performance condition threat and undermining remained significant when controlling for
was significant and positive (.053; CI 90% [.004, .11]), which envy. This may suggest that undermining of high performers is
supported Hypothesis 4. Our inquiry focuses on peers’ comparison motivated more by peers’ rational calculation rather than emo-
and rational consideration rather than their emotional reactions to tional reaction.
high performers but we wanted to demonstrated that the effect of
performance on undermining (through threat perceptions) ex-
plained unique variance over and above feelings of envy (cf. Kim
General Discussion
& Glomb, 2014). When controlling for felt envy, threat percep-
tions still positively and significantly predicted undermining (b " Theoretical Contributions and Implications
.17; p # .05).
To test the proposed cooperative climate moderation, we added We sought to offer a broader model of social consequences of
the climate manipulation (dummy coded), the hypothesized mod- high performance that specifies how peers judge and intentionally
erator (i.e., cooperative climate), and the interaction term to the behave toward high performers. Findings from field and lab stud-
model. The effect on perceived benefit—support relationship was ies showed both social advantages and disadvantages for high
not significant. Though, results revealed that high cooperative performers: Performance positively and significantly predicted
climates strengthened the positive relationship between peer threat social support and undermining from peers, mediated through
perceptions and undermining. Analysis of simple slopes (cf. Aiken contrasting perceptions of how performers impacted peer re-
& West, 1991) indicated that the relationship between threat per- sources. Data also showcase that high cooperative climates can
ceptions and social undermining was positive in high cooperative wash out high performers’ advantage for support, yet exacerbate
climates (b " .24, SE " .09, p # .05; see Figure 2b) but not the prevalence of undermining. Results advance theory in several
significant in low cooperative climates (b " %.04, SE " .08; ns). ways (see Table 6).
We estimated the indirect effect of high performer condition on First, findings offer several important contributions to research
undermining when cooperative climate was high (.09; CI 90% on high performers’ victimization and social experiences at work.
[.029, .168]) and low (%.01; CI 90% [%.046, .022]). In summary, Early management research first shed light on peer mistreatment of
Study 2 results supported Hypothesis 5b but not 5a. high performers (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Since then,
research has indicated that peers may derive pleasure when high
achievers get knocked down (Feather, 1994, 2012) and may bully
Discussion
them in the classroom (Peterson & Ray, 2006). Management
Study 2 results largely converged with, and extended upon, scholars have started to rigorously examine this phenomenon in
those from Study 1. We found that manipulating objective perfor- the workplace, offering compelling evidence that peers harm
mance from average to high (a) increased peer perceptions that the smarter coworkers (Kim & Glomb, 2010), high performers (Kim
performer was beneficial and threatening to work resources, (b) & Glomb, 2014), more generous coworkers (Irwin & Horne,
increased the likelihood that peers would offer the performer an 2013), and coworkers whose performance deviates from average
opportunity, and (c) increased observed undermining of the per- (Jensen et al., 2014). We join this thread of research and build
former. Findings established causal links between high performers knowledge of how, why, and when peers treat high performers
and positive and negative perceptions and behaviors from peers. positively and negatively. Findings showed that peers both sup-
We found that cooperative climates exacerbated the positive, in- ported and undermined high performers. At face value, this may
direct effect of high performance on undermining. Further, we seem encouraging and complementary to studies on high per-
replicated Kim and Glomb’s (2014) finding: Envy linked high former victimization. However, this combination of behaviors may
performance with undermining. Interestingly, the relationship be- actually prove more detrimental than it is balancing to high per-
tween envy and undermining was no longer significant when formers’ social experience. Results from studies of personal and
supervisor-subordinate relationships converge to reveal that re-
(.10)
(.10)
(.11)
(.10)
(.11)
(.11)
(.11)
SE
Model 9 ceiving support and mistreatment from the same source can inten-
sify individuals’ tension, psychological strain, reactivity, and so-
.27!!
.12!!
.21!
(.21) %.21!! (.09) %.24!! (.09) %.22!
.04!
cial uncertainty compared with mistreatment alone (Duffy et al.,
.03
.15
.05
%.03
3.16
b
2002; Hobman et al., 2009; Uchino et al., 2004).

(.11) Second, our model expands upon mechanisms driving peer
.17! (.09)
(.08)
SE
Response to undermining
Model 8
behaviors by specifying dual explanatory pathways for peer sup-
Note. N " 204; support variables estimated with logistic regression and the remaining regressions are OLS. Bold coefficients represent hypothesized relationship of interest.
port and undermining. Doing so enabled our research to highlight
.08!!
.08!!
.23!
.04
3.65
an important paradox: Peers view high performers as both bene-
b
ficial and threatening to their resources at work. This complements

past work that linked high performance victimization through
(.10)
.19! (.09)
SE
Model 7
peers’ emotional reactance (i.e., envy; Kim & Glomb, 2014). Our
.08!! findings suggest that—above and beyond envy—a more strategic
.08!!
.27!
4.61
calculation drives how peers treat high performers at work. By

theoretically and empirically grounding our investigation to con-

1.30!! (.25)
(.22)
(.21)
(.26)
(.21)
servation of resources theory, we also were able to specify tangible

SE
Model 6
resource considerations that peers make when working with high

.29!!
.29!
(.18) %.33!
performers. This lends sharper understand of the mechanisms

%.03
.22
!.16
47.60
.01
b
beyond general comparison and feelings of inferiority and opens

avenues for future investigation on psychological mechanisms
1.22!! (.19)
(.16)
SE
shaping social responses to high performers.

Model 5
Offered opportunity
Third, we introduced cooperative climate as a contextual modera-

.28!!
.28!!
.29!
(.19) %.31!
59.51
tor. Cooperative climates can benefit groups in terms of efficiency and

b
effectiveness (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). Ironically, cooperative cli-

mates may prove a greater disservice for the individuals who dispro-
(.18)
(.18)
(.21)
(.21)
(.19)
SE
Model 4
portionately contribute to organizational success. Taken as a whole,

results across studies suggest peers in high cooperative climates
.17! (.08) %.68!! (.16) .50!!
.14!!
(.15) %.38!
!.28†
.03!
.21
(.16) .15
.28
23.75
b
regulate behavioral expression of their rational calculus consistent

Support
with mutual interest of the group rather than self-interest. In high

cooperative climates (Study 1) peers did not offer more support to
SE
Model 3
high performers than lower performers—in spite of viewing them as

.11!!
.11!!
more beneficial (Study 1) and (Study 2) they were more likely to

Offered help
!.17
.17
23.31
b
undermine high performers that they viewed as threatening (Study 2).

Findings imply that, in high cooperative climates, peers may be
.25!! (.06)
SE
Model 2b
reactive to the positive deviance of high performers, motivated to

protect the workgroup solidarity and commonality, and vested in
.16!!
.08!!
19.44
maintaining cooperative standards; as a consequence, high performers

b
received less support and more undermining.

Fourth, to delineate mechanisms, we invoked theories of social
.31!! (.07)
SE
Perceived
Model 2a
comparison and conservation of resources. Social comparison the-

threat
ory has explained a variety of work phenomena. However, most

.09!!
.09!!
19.47
upward comparison research has focused on when individuals

b
make assimilations or contrasts—treating the question as either/or

.32!! (.08)
(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). We explain how upward comparisons

SE
Perceived
Model 1
benefit
can spark both assimilation and contrast. In doing so, we expand

p # .10. ! p # .05. !! p # .01 (one-tailed).
.08!!
.08!!
the predictive power of social comparison theory to explain peers’

17.89
Experimental Study Regression Results
paradoxical cognitive and behavioral responses to high performer.

Research has usefully applied social comparison theory to explain
Performance condition (%1 " average
cooperative; 1 " high cooperative)
why peers may harm high performers (e.g., Lam et al., 2011).
performer; 1 " high performer)
However, like its application, studies have failed to consider how

Cooperative Climate & Benefit
Cooperative Climate & Threat
Perceived benefit to resources
upward comparison may be self-enhancing (Collins, 1996) and

Perceived threat to resources
Climate condition (0 " low
have limited its consideration to how high performers impact

Variable
peers’ personal view of self. We integrate social comparison with

Cooperative climate
conservation of resources theory to offer a new, utilitarian view of

how social comparison with high performers can both enhance and
deplete peers’ resources. Our model suggests that upward com-
Felt envy
parisons motivate peers to both accumulate new resources and

Table 5
F or (2
conserve current resources from high performers. This also con-

)R2
tributes to conservation of resources theory, which is fundamen-

R2
†
Table 6
Effect of Performance on Undermining Via Perceived Threat at High and Low Levels of Cooperative Climate
Stage Effect
First (a) Second (b) Direct (c=) Indirect (a ! b)
Moderator Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate CI
Cooperative climate
High ('1 SD) .38!! (.10) .24! (.09) .12 (.14) .09! [.029, .168]
Low (%1 SD) .25!! (.10) %.04 (.08) .25 (.14) %.01 [%.046, .022]
Note. N " 204. 90% confidence internals for indirect effects (a ! b) are based upon 5,000 Monte Carlo replications using R.
!
p # .05. !! p # .01 (two-tailed).
tally a theory of motivation but is most commonly invoked to cognitive ability as go-getters. Anecdote and evidence indeed suggest
explain conservation models related stress and strain (Halbesleben that people prefer underdogs who have to struggle for success (Van-
& Buckley, 2004)—with far less attention paid to the accumulation dello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007).
path compared with the conservation path and even less to both Second, we did not consider how peers’ characteristics, beyond
resource paths simultaneously (Halbesleben et al., 2014). their own performance, affect their evaluation of high performers
Fifth, our study is the first to examine consequences of high or high performer-directed behaviors. Our theoretical and empiri-
performance in a controlled setting. By replicating field study cal accounts feature peers’ benefit and threat perceptions as dually
results in a lab experiment, Study 2 established causal order and increasing in the midst of a high performer. However, the ratio of
ruled out alternative explanations for why peers supported and perceived benefit versus threat may vary based upon peer charac-
undermined high performers. In the field, our data also enabled teristics. Social comparison work suggests peers’ view of self
consideration of how peers’ own performance influences their would impact the strength and direction of their judgments (Buunk
judgment and treatment of high performers. Results demonstrated & Gibbons, 2007). Peers high in learning-orientation or promotion
that peer performance did not significantly affect their perceptions focus may cast high performers as more beneficial, while sensi-
of high performers or support offered to them. Though, interest- tivity to threat may be more salient for peers high in prove-
ingly, high performing peers were more likely to undermine orientation or prevention focus. Self-interested peers may be es-
fellow high performers, which may indicate they consider high pecially sensitive to threatening comparison and more reactive to
performers as more direct threats or see it as less costly to high performers. Though, they may also admire high performers
mistreat them because they themselves have idiosyncratic credit while prosocial peers may view their efforts as self-seeking and
to spend (Hobfoll, 2001). Because the literature on high per- judge them punitively. In kind, conservation of resources suggests
formers has predominantly shed light on their role as victims peers’ inventory of their own resources impacts the strength and
rather than perpetrators, this effect may point toward a useful direction of their rational calculus (Halbesleben et al., 2014).
avenue for future research. When peers perceive having fewer resources, they can become
more reactive or stressed by colleague comparison and related
Limitations and Future Research politics (Hochwarter, Ferris, Laird, Treadway, & Coleman Gal-
Contributions should be viewed in light of study limitations, which lagher, 2010). Type of performer contribution may also impact
we hope will stimulate future investigation. First, we focused on peer calculation of benefit versus threat. Peers may react differ-
climate and explored peers’ own performance as moderators. These ently to high performers who overcontribute in affiliative (i.e.,
choices came at the cost of examining performer characteristics as overhelping or oversacrificing) versus challenging-oriented ways
moderators. Interesting studies have shown that other-oriented high (i.e., overinnovating or overimproving; e.g., Hardy & Van Vugt,
performers may be buffered from victimization (Jensen et al., 2014; 2006; Peterson, 1999; Willer, 2009). Further, our studies offered
Kim & Glomb, 2010) while other work has shown peers lash out convergent, but not directly conclusive, evidence that high per-
against “do-gooders” (e.g., Minson & Monin, 2012). Consequently, formers lose social advantage and incur greater social penalty in
clarifying whether performer characteristics moderate effects seems cooperative groups. Work to examine how group climate affects
valuable. Study 1 results underscored this: Substantial variance in social treatment of high performers could prove informative.
support and undermining behaviors was attributable to between- Third, our studies cannot account for extreme levels performance
performer differences (Level 2). Performer gender may be of partic- (i.e., outliers), which may have prevented us from finding nonlinear
ular consequence given the robust evidence that both male and female effects. Extreme performance differences are rare in the salon context
peers penalized women for success (Ellemers, Rink, Derks, & Ryan, because exceptional performers often leave to start their own salons
2012; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tam- and very low performers are let go. Similarly, our experimental
kins, 2004). Stylists were overwhelmingly female, leaving our data manipulation did not vary the magnitudes of high performance. Jen-
unable to address this but we hope future work can unearth whether sen et al. (2014) found that peers targeted performers who were at
high performers are treated differently across gender. Cognitive abil- either the highest or lowest levels of the performance spectrum.
ity may also interact with performance to impact peer attributions and However, like Kim and Glomb (2014), when we tested curvilinear
treatment of performers. Peers may judge average performers of high effects, our field data did not replicate these curvilinear findings. We
cognitive ability as loafers but laud high performers of low or average hope future research can address this inconsistency.
Fourth, our results cannot speak to performance effects resulting lates further efforts to understand how individual performance shapes
from performance change or trajectory. Indirect evidence from the social dynamics and informs high performers and managers alike on
status and power literature indicates that individuals who rise ways to promote performance and wellbeing at work.
quickly garner more attention than those who rise slowly or those
who decline (e.g., Pettit, Yong, & Spataro, 2010; Sivanathan,
Pillutla, & Murnighan, 2008). Peers also may confer more influ- References
ence to those with positive rather than declining performance Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
momentum (Pettit, Sivanathan, Gladstone, & Marr, 2013). Exam- interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ining the impact of within-person performance trajectory seems Alicke, M. D., LoSchiavo, F. M., Zerbst, J., & Zhang, S. (1997). The
both theoretically intriguing and important to practice. person who outperforms me is a genius: Maintaining perceived compe-
tence in upward social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 781–789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.781
Practical Implications Allport, F. H. (1954). The structuring of events: Outline of a general theory
with applications to psychology. Psychological Review, 61, 281–303.
High performers are difficult employees to retain and continue to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062678
be an area of high investment (Capelli & Keller, 2014). In global Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior
studies, 30% of high performers reported lack of engagement and in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, ag-
25% expected to work elsewhere within a year (Martin & Schmidt, gressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and
2010). This is often attributed to increased job prospects for high Human Decision Processes, 90, 195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
performers. We identify an alternative driver of voluntary turnover: S0749-5978(02)00517-4
Challenging social interactions with peers. Research has shown high Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Effects of social comparison
performers commonly earn higher pay and faster promotion, but also direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected
struggle to maintain high performance and leave sooner compared to success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 708 –722.
peers, which may be due to a lack of positive social relationships (e.g., http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.708
Barrera, M., Jr., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary
Bidwell, 2011; Groysberg & Lee, 2009; Groysberg, Lee, & Nanda,
development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students.
2008). Undermining, coupled with social support from the same American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 435– 447. http://dx.doi
source, can induce more stress and social tension for high performers .org/10.1007/BF00918174
and in turn hurt their effectiveness and wellbeing (Duffy et al., 2002; Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of the leader-member
Uchino et al., 2004). Organizations may benefit by focusing on ways exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
to foster social acceptance of high performers in order to keep them. 1538 –1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257068
Our research can also inform managers and high performers. For Bercovitz, J., Jap, S., & Nickerson, J. (2006). The antecedents and perfor-
managers, cultivating and protecting positive interactions within mance implications of cooperative exchange norms. Organization Sci-
workgroups is a key responsibility, and yet they may underestimate ence, 17, 724 –740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0213
the harmful effects that performance differentiation can have within Berger, J. M., Fiske, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977).
Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states ap-
workgroups (e.g., Christie & Barling, 2010; Groysberg, Nanda, &
proach. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Nohria, 2004; Lam et al., 2011). Managers should stay mindful of Bidwell, M. (2011). Paying More to Get Less: The Effects of External
how performance differences shape social dynamics. Further, while Hiring versus Internal Mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56,
more organizations follow trends to emphasize cooperation and col- 369 – 407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839211433562
laboration, results imply that managers should keep in mind the Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
impact that cooperative norms can have on high performers— espe- reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein
cially because workgroup climate is at least partially influenced by & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
aspects managers can control (Ostroff et al., 2013). In tandem, high in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 –
performers should be aware of how their performance may impact 381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
professional relationships. Strong performance benefits individual Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the
victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of
careers. However, as the nature of work grows more complex and
Applied Psychology, 91, 998 –1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
requires supportive networks, high performers must form strong 9010.91.5.998
bonds with coworkers and develop the social capital needed to main- Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at
tain high achievement and thrive at work (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–
Seibert et al., 2001). 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in
collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and col-
Conclusion lectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151. http://dx.doi.org/10
Although victimization of high performers has received recent .1037/0033-295X.114.1.133
attention, we offer theory and evidence that their social experiences at Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of
collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and
work may be more complex and nuanced. Our research expands the
Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71
view of social consequences, revealing that high performers attract .1.83
more social support and social undermining from peers. Results help Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interper-
to explain why high performers elicited these seemingly paradoxical sonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and
behaviors from peers and identified when social treatment may be Social Psychology, 66, 268 –275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
more unfavorable for high performers. We hope this inquiry stimu- .66.2.268
Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social com- Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. (2010). Beyond status: Relating status
parison. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: inequality to performance and health in teams. Journal of Applied
Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 149 –186). Washington, DC: Psychology, 95, 920 –934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019856
Hemisphere. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thome, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., &
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field
materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross- studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366 –375.
cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349 – 444). Boston, MA: Allyn & http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366
Bacon. Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social
Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Heller, D., & Keeping, L. M. (2007). Ante- comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51– 69.
cedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51
social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human De- Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in
cision Processes, 102, 59 –75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10 social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social
.003 comparison: Theory and research (pp. 253–270). New York, NY: Ple-
Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When num Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4237-7_9
Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self- Dalton, M. (1948). The industrial rate buster: A characterization. Applied
appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717–727. Anthropology, 7, 5–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.717 De Dreu, C. K., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of
groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889 –
Quarterly, 48, 557–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3556637 905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889
Burke, R. J. (1982). Consequences of performance and competently exe- Deloitte Human Capital. (2008). The chemistry of talent. Straight Talk
cuted work. Canadian Psychology, 23, 73– 82. http://dx.doi.org/10 Book No. 10. Parsippany, NJ: Deloitte Development, LLC.
.1037/h0081251 Dentler, R. A., & Erikson, K. T. (1959). The functions of deviance in
Buunk, A., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a groups. Social Problems, 7, 98 –107. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/799160
theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human
Relations, 2, 199 –231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200301
Human Decision Processes, 102, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destruc-
.obhdp.2006.09.007
tive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., & Dakof,
Dong, Y., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Campbell, E. M. (2015).
G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either
Fostering employee service creativity: Joint effects of customer empow-
direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social
ering behaviors and supervisory empowering leadership. Journal of
Psychology, 59, 1238 –1249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6
Applied Psychology, 100, 1364 –1380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
.1238
a0038969
Buunk, B. P., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). New directions in social compar-
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in
ison research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 467– 475.
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. http://
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.77
dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069350
Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Peiro, J. M., Nauta, A., & Gosalvez, I. (2005).
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M.
Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and
(2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organiza-
to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psy-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 105–126. http://
chology, 54, 61– 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005
.00196.x Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012).
Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2015). Stargazing: An Why and when envy leads to social undermining: Development and tests
integrative conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension of a social context framework. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
for star employee research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 623– 643– 666. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0804
640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039100 Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2008). Envy in organi-
Capelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2014). Talent management: Conceptual ap- zational life. In R. H. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and research (pp.
proaches and practical challenges. Annual Review of Organizational 167–189). New York, NY: Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 305–331. oso/9780195327953.003.0010
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high quality connec-
heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms tions. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956 –974. http:// organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069440 Koehler Publishers.
Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S., & Neale, M. (1998). Being different Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of
yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper
organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
Science Quarterly, 43, 749 –780. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393615 perspectives in research and practice (pp. 9 –22). London, UK: Taylor
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated & Francis.
behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. K. (2012). Women in high
223–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0 places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm
Chen, Y.-F., Huang, X., & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Similarity in gender and them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Research in
self-esteem for supportive peer relationships: The mediating role of Organizational Behavior, 32, 163–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob
cooperative goals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1147– .2012.10.003
1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00343.x Feather, N. T. (1994). Attitudes toward high achievers and reactions to
their fall. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy- Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role
chology (Vol. 26, pp. 1–73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping
Feather, N. T. (2012). Tall poppies, deservingness and schadenfreude. The behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 1628 –1650. http://dx.doi.org/10
Psychologist, 25, 434 – 437. .1177/0149206312455246
Feldman, N. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1981). Social comparison strategies: Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The com-
Dimensions offered and options taken. Personality and Social Psychol- petitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
ogy Bulletin, 7, 11–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728171002 32, 1402–1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291006
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for
Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are Applied Psychology, 92, 81–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92
“we,” you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social .1.81
comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239 – Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004).
251. Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-
Gibbons, D. E. (2004). Friendship and advice networks in the context of typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416 – 427. http://dx.doi
changing professional values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, .org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

238 –262. Hill, N. S., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. A. (2009). When time
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons is not enough: The development of trust and cooperation in computer-
arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–236. mediated teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.227 cesses, 108, 187–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.10.002
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at con-
Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Man- ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. http://dx.doi
agement Journal, 46, 486 – 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040640 .org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Goethals, G. R. (1986). Social comparison theory: Psychology from the Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the
lost and found. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 261– nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources
278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167286123001 theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337– 421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
Gorgievski, M. J., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). Expand-
1464-0597.00062
ing the boundaries of psychological resource theories. Journal of Occu-
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation.
pational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10
Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02015.x
1089-2680.6.4.307
Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out or fire us
Hobfoll, S. E. (2009). Social support: The movie. Journal of Social and
up: Conservation of resources in burnout and engagement. In J. R. B.
Personal Relationships, 26, 93–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp.
0265407509105524
1–22). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P. (1990). Conservation of
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories:
social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and
The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Man-
Personal Relationships, 7, 465– 478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
agement Annals, 3, 317–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/194165
0265407590074004
20903047327
Hobfoll, S. E., & London, P. (1986). The relationship of self-concept and
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of
social support to emotional distress among women during war. Journal
personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603– 618. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603 of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 189 –203. http://dx.doi.org/10
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role .1521/jscp.1986.4.2.189
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con- Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009).
texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. http://dx.doi.org/ Abusive supervision in advising relationships: Investigating the role of
10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438 social support. Applied Psychology, 58, 233–256. http://dx.doi.org/10
Groysberg, B. (2010). Chasing stars: The myth of talent and the portability .1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00330.x
of performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Laird, M. D., Treadway, D. C., &
.org/10.1515/9781400834389 Coleman Gallagher, V. (2010). Nonlinear politics perceptions—Work
Groysberg, B., & Lee, L.-E. (2009). Hiring stars and their colleagues: outcomes relationships: A three-study, five-sample investigation. Jour-
Exploration and exploitation in professional service firms. Organization nal of Management, 36, 740 –763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Science, 20, 740 –758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0430 0149206308324065
Groysberg, B., Lee, L.-E., & Nanda, A. (2008). Can they take it with them? Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierar-
The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance: Myth or real- chical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal
ity. Management Science, 54, 1213–1230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ of Management, 24, 623– 641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920
mnsc.1070.0809 639802400504
Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004). The risky business of Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application
hiring stars. Harvard Business Review, 82, 100, 151. of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
life. Journal of Management, 30, 859 – 879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–
.jm.2004.06.004 511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, Hogg, M. A. (2000). Social identity and social comparison. In J. Suls & L.
M. (2014). Getting to the “COR:” Understanding the role of resources in Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research
conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334 – (pp. 401– 421). New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/
1364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130 10.1007/978-1-4615-4237-7_19
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social Martin, J., & Schmidt, C. (2010). How to keep your top talent. Harvard
psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London, UK: Business Review, 88, 54 – 61.
Routledge. Mayo, E. (1949). Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company: The
Irwin, K., & Horne, C. (2013). A normative explanation of antisocial social problems of an industrial civilisation. London, UK: Routledge.
punishment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Menon, T., & Phillips, K. W. (2011). Getting even vs. being the odd one
42, 562–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.004 out: Cohesion in even- and odd-sized groups. Organization Science, 22,
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group 738 –753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0535
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for
Psychology, 69, 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Raver, J. L. (2014). Is it better to be average? Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Putting down
High and low performance as predictors of employee victimization. morally-motivated others to defuse implicit moral reproach. Social Psy-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 296 –309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ chological & Personality Science, 3, 200 –207. http://dx.doi.org/10
a0034822 .1177/1948550611415695
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. Molleman, E., Nauta, A., & Buunk, B. P. (2007). Social comparison-based
(1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal thoughts in groups: Their associations with interpersonal trust and learn-
structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, ing outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1163–1180.
47– 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00207.x
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, Mussweiler, T. (2003a). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mech-
personality, and victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 889 – anisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472– 489. http://
901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019985 dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The Mussweiler, T. (2003b). “Everything is relative:” Comparison processes in
roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psy- social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 719 –733.
chology, 99, 619 – 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.169
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The “relative self:” Informational and
judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of
organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 23–38. http://dx.doi.org/10
Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming
.1037/0022-3514.79.1.23
high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal
Nahum-Shani, I., Henderson, M. M., Lim, S., & Vinokur, A. D. (2014).
harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 588 – 601.
Supervisor support: Does supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021882
adverse effects of supervisor undermining? Journal of Applied Psychol-
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about
ogy, 99, 484 –503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035313
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Duffy, M. K., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Construct
Methods, 11, 815– 852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
confusion in the study of antisocial behavior at work. Research in
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers:
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 275–303.
An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational
Management Review, 26, 67– 84.
culture and climate. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (pp.
Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B.
643– 676). New York, NY: Wiley.
Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 187–231). Hillsdale,
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims,
NJ: Erlbaum.
perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148 –
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Process in small group research. 168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000206
Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585– 634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ Peterson, R. S. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits
annurev.ps.41.020190.003101 of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders. Personality and Social
Locke, K. D., & Nekich, J. (2000). Agency and communion in naturalistic Psychology Bulletin, 25, 313–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 0146167299025003004
864 – 874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200269011 Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Marr, J. C. (2013). Rising stars and
Lockwood, P. (2002). Could it happen to you? Predicting the impact of sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24,
downward comparisons on the self. Journal of Personality and Social 1579–1584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473120
Psychology, 82, 343–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.343 Pettit, N. C., Yong, K., & Spataro, S. E. (2010). Holding your place:
Long, D. M., Baer, M. D., Colquitt, J. A., Outlaw, R., & Dhensa-Kahlon, Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. Journal of Exper-
R. K. (2015). What will the boss think? The impression management imental Social Psychology, 46, 396 – 401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
implications of supportive relationships with star and project peers. .jesp.2009.12.007
Personnel Psychology, 68, 463– 498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
.12091 Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling 88, 879 –903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 –128. http://dx.doi Raat, A. N., Kuks, J. B., van Hell, E. A., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2013).
.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 Peer influence on students’ estimates of performance: Social comparison
Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Moss, J. H., Leo, J. L., & Plant, E. A. (2012). in clinical rotations. Medical Education, 47, 190 –197. http://dx.doi.org/
Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives enhance people’s 10.1111/medu.12066
sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 7 for
Psychology, 103, 70 – 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028172 Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software Interna-
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for tional, Inc.
cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social
terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181–228.
31, 977–994. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.22527470 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60227-0
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences
Psychology, 59, 419 – 450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59 of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of
.103006.093716 being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49 – 61.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.49
Promotion rejectees invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Tjosvold, D. (1988). Cooperative and competitive dynamics within and
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 33– 47. http://dx.doi.org/ between organizational units. Human Relations, 41, 425– 436. http://dx
10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.01.001 .doi.org/10.1177/001872678804100601
Schmitt, N., Cortina, J. M., Ingerick, M. J., & Wiechmann, D. (2003). Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to con-
Personnel selection and employee performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. flict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 46, 285–
Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. 342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1998.tb00025.x
Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 77–105). Hoboken, NJ: Tjosvold, D., Sun, H. F., & Wan, P. (2005). An experimental examination
Wiley. of social contexts and the use of power in a Chinese sample. The Journal
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. A. (2011). Organizational of Social Psychology, 145, 645– 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP
climate research: Achievement and the road ahead. In N. M. Ashkanasy, .145.6.645-662
C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organiza- Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The
tional culture & climate (2nd ed., pp. 29 – 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Man-
Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483307961.n3 agement Studies, 41, 1223–1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital .2004.00473.x
theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219 – Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty
237. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069452 jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing man Decision Processes, 89, 966 –984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-
mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for
5978(02)00038-9
indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/
Uchino, B. N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. W., & Bloor, L. (2004).
Sibley, C. G. (2008). Utilities for examining interactions in multiple
Heterogeneity in social networks: A comparison of different models
regression [Computer software].
linking relationships to psychological outcomes. Journal of Social and
Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of George Simmel. New York, NY: Free
Clinical Psychology, 23, 123–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.2
Press.
.123.31014
Sivanathan, N., Pillutla, M., & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Power lost or
Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N. P., & Richards, D. A. (2007). The appeal
power gained. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1603–
105, 135–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.10.003
1616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207307488
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness
roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the
Applied Psychology, 82, 434 – 443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
.82.3.434
877– 893. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798169
Smither, J. W. (2012). Performance management. In S. W. J. Kozlowski
van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. A. (2001). Power use in
(Ed.), Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 285–329).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. cooperative and competitive settings. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23,
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction 293–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_5
to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: Sage. Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–
Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Acad- 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256731
emy of Management Journal, 44, 316 –325. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange
3069458 quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487– 499. http://dx
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504. http:// .doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487
dx.doi.org/10.2307/256789 Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2013). Handbook of social comparison: Theory performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Acad-
and research. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media. emy of Management Journal, 41, 540 –555. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
Sutton, R. I. (2007). The war for talent is back. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 256941
Business Online. Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life.
Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & McAllister, D. (2012). Envy as pain: Rethinking Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 760 –773. http://dx
the nature of envy and its implications for employees and organizations. .doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.760
Academy of Management Review, 37, 107–129. Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74,
New York: Cambridge University Press. 23– 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400102
Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of
Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96, personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231–248. http://dx.doi
569 –575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.569 .org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.231
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on Wood, J. V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study
the work-home interface: The work– home resources model. American it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 520 –537. http://dx
Psychologist, 67, 545–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027974 .doi.org/10.1177/0146167296225009
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision plied Psychology, 87, 1068 –1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Ap- .87.6.1068
Appendix
Round Performance Manipulation in Virtual Team Simulation
Team member Round 1 score Round 2 score
Experimental condition (high performer)

#Participant #1 Name* 10 9
Control condition (average performer)
Received July 30, 2015

Revision received October 24, 2016
Accepted October 29, 2016 !
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/portal/alerts/ and you will
be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

Why High Performers Struggle in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why High Performers Struggle in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why High Performers Struggle in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association

2017, Vol. 102, No. 5, 845– 866 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000183

Hot Shots and Cool Reception? An Expanded View of Social

Elizabeth M. Campbell Hui Liao

Aichia Chuang Jing Zhou

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of social consequences for high performers.

As peers consider high performers beneficial to their own re-

peers’ feelings of envy— common reaction to unfavorable social

comparisons (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Gilbert, Giesler, &

Perceived benefit Perceived threat Support Undermining

Perceived Benefit & Cooperative Climate !.11! (.07) .02 (.08)

1. Performance condition (%1 " average

supervisor-subordinate relationships converge to reveal that re-

(.21) %.21!! (.09) %.24!! (.09) %.22!

2002; Hobman et al., 2009; Uchino et al., 2004).

behaviors by specifying dual explanatory pathways for peer sup-

ficial and threatening to their resources at work. This complements

calculation drives how peers treat high performers at work. By

theoretically and empirically grounding our investigation to con-

servation of resources theory, we also were able to specify tangible

resource considerations that peers make when working with high

performers. This lends sharper understand of the mechanisms

beyond general comparison and feelings of inferiority and opens

shaping social responses to high performers.

Third, we introduced cooperative climate as a contextual modera-

tor. Cooperative climates can benefit groups in terms of efficiency and

effectiveness (Chatman & Flynn, 2001). Ironically, cooperative cli-

portionately contribute to organizational success. Taken as a whole,

regulate behavioral expression of their rational calculus consistent

with mutual interest of the group rather than self-interest. In high

high performers than lower performers—in spite of viewing them as

more beneficial (Study 1) and (Study 2) they were more likely to

undermine high performers that they viewed as threatening (Study 2).

reactive to the positive deviance of high performers, motivated to

maintaining cooperative standards; as a consequence, high performers

received less support and more undermining.

comparison and conservation of resources. Social comparison the-

ory has explained a variety of work phenomena. However, most

upward comparison research has focused on when individuals

make assimilations or contrasts—treating the question as either/or

(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). We explain how upward comparisons

can spark both assimilation and contrast. In doing so, we expand

the predictive power of social comparison theory to explain peers’

paradoxical cognitive and behavioral responses to high performer.

cooperative; 1 " high cooperative)

However, like its application, studies have failed to consider how

upward comparison may be self-enhancing (Collins, 1996) and

have limited its consideration to how high performers impact

peers’ personal view of self. We integrate social comparison with

conservation of resources theory to offer a new, utilitarian view of

parisons motivate peers to both accumulate new resources and

conserve current resources from high performers. This also con-

tributes to conservation of resources theory, which is fundamen-

High performers are difficult employees to retain and continue to

changing professional values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, .org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

Team member Round 1 score Round 2 score

Experimental condition (high performer)

Received July 30, 2015

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!