Mitigating the Individualistic Drift of I-Deals: Lessons from Japanese and Vietnamese Organizations

Mitigating the Individualistic Drift of I-Deals: Lessons from Japanese and Vietnamese Organizations | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Mitigating the Individualistic Drift of I-Deals: Lessons from Japanese and Vietnamese Organizations Yasuhiro Hattoi, Huong Hoang, Hue Nguyen, Kyoko Yamazaki, Trung Bui This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6845841/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Asian Journal of Business Ethics → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates how idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) may unintentionally promote workplace individualization, and how organizations can mitigate this effect. Drawing on qualitative data from four organizations in Asia, we explore how i-deals trigger entitlement among recipients and malicious envy among coworkers—both of which threaten cooperative norms and workplace cohesion. The findings reveal three organizational mechanisms that counter these effects: (1) institutional conditions (e.g., transparent evaluation, accessibility) help legitimize i-deals, (2) cancelling social comparisons reduces emotional tensions, and (3) ethical and relational framing reshapes how employees interpret the presence of i-deals. Building on a combined grounded theory and Gioia methodology, the study develops an integrative model that distinguishes between the cognitive, emotional, and interpretive functions of these mechanisms. Furthermore, it shows that procedural justice, while essential, can paradoxically reinforce status distinctions and psychological tension if not embedded within a relationally grounded narrative. We propose a three-tier model integrating legitimacy, emotion regulation, and moral framing to mitigate this drift. These findings contribute to the literature on i-deals, workplace justice, and employment individualization by identifying strategies that help organizations retain talent without eroding cooperation. i-deals individualization of workplace procedural justice social comparison ethical/relational lens Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION In late modernity, workplace relationships have become increasingly shaped by neoliberal ideologies and the individualism they promote, placing employees at the center of organizational life (Bal & Dóci, 2018). Workers are expected to act autonomously, pursue personal benefit, and take responsibility for their outcomes and wellbeing. Sennett (1998) argues that flexible labor markets weaken long-term commitments, fostering transactional and competitive workplace relationships. This shift is not confined to Western societies; similar trends are evident in East and Southeast Asia (Ochiai, 2009; Luong, 2023). While this individualization promotes self-managed careers, it may also foster entitlement and dissatisfaction—ultimately threatening workplace cooperation. Amid these conditions, idiosyncratic deals (i-deals)—voluntary, individualized arrangements that benefit both employees and employers (Rousseau, 2005)—have gained traction. Their growing prevalence reflects the increasing fragmentation of standardized employment practices (Bal & Hornung, 2019). While i-deals offer practical benefits by accommodating individual needs and aligning them with organizational goals, they also raise ethical concerns. As Greenberg et al. ( 2004 ) argue, i-deals deviate from standard procedures and thus challenge established norms of justice and justice. They may lead to perceptions of favoritism and inequality among coworkers (Ng & Feldman, 2010; Liu et al., 2013; Marescaux et al., 2019). This dual nature creates an ethical paradox: although i-deals aim to motivate and empower, they may simultaneously erode the relational norms on which cooperation depends (Ng, 2017; Wu et al., 2022 ). In this sense, i-deals are not only a response to individualism but also a catalyst for it—reshaping workplace culture in potentially divisive ways. Following Rousseau’s seminal work, researchers initially examined relationships between received i-deals and outcomes (e.g., Hornung et al., 2010 ). Research on received i-deals have consistently showed that received i-deals positively impact employees. For example, Rosen and colleagues (2013) found that four i-deal dimensions—schedule flexibility, job responsibilities, location flexibility, and financial incentives—enhance affective commitment, while they showed that flexibility and developmental i-deals improve commitment via perceived organizational support and self-esteem. Liao and colleagues (2016) conducted a meta-analysis comparing i-deals' effects across Eastern and Western cultures and found positive impacts of them on perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, emotional commitment, and leader-member exchange, with cultural variations. More recently, Vossaert and colleagues (2023) analyzed team dynamics and revealed that i-deal prevalence influences OCB and cohesion while moderated by i-deal scarcity and team power structure. Among i-deals research, the link between received i-deals and outcomes remains the most studied, with many emphasizing contextual factors (Wasti et al., 2022 ). Although there are relatively few studies on witnessing i-deals (i.e. studies of witnessing i-deals by coworkers and its results), they focus directly on the ethical paradox mentioned above. Witnessing i-deals often triggers upward social comparisons, leading individuals to evaluate themselves against peers. This process is linked to negative attitudes and behaviors such as complaining (Marescaux et al., 2019), deviant behaviors (Kong et al., 2020), and reduced organizational citizenship behaviors (Van Waeyenberg et al., 2023 ). Witnessing i-deals can also generate envy, resentment, and cynicism, disrupting workplace harmony (Marescaux et al., 2019). Contextual factors shape coworkers' responses to witnessed i-deals, with procedural justice acting as a moderator that can mitigate or amplify negative reactions (Van Waeyenberg et al., 2023 ). Similarly, confidence in future opportunities and interdependent work settings can heighten perceived unjustice (Gachayeva et al., 2024 ). Research on received i-deals has largely demonstrated that they can benefit the workplace by enhancing the positive attitudes and behaviors of i-dealers. Importantly, these positive effects depend on the presence of relational resources, including team value alignment (Anand et al., 2018), supervisor support (Las Heras et al., 2017 ), high-quality LMX/TMX (Anand et al., 2010 ), interdependent work structures, and gratitude expression (Gachayeva et al., 2024 ). These findings suggest that a degree of relational foundations are essential for i-deals to function effectively. In contrast, research on witnessing i-deals suggests that the i-deals may unintentionally undermine these relational foundations—through coworkers' dissatisfaction (Marescaux et al., 2019), deviant behavior (Kong et al., 2020), and reduced citizenship behaviors (Van Waeyenberg et al., 2023 ). Despite progress in both research streams, studies of received and witnessed i-deals have evolved largely in isolation, with limited attempts to explore their interdependence or cumulative effects on workplace relationships. A rare exception is Ng (2017), who proposed an integrated model examining how both received and witnessed i-deals contribute to perceptions of a competitive climate. His study demonstrated that this climate, in turn, increases felt ostracism among both i-deals and coworkers—highlighting the broader social and psychological consequences of i-deals. Ng (2017) offers a valuable contribution by examining how both received and witnessed i-deals can lead employees to perceive a more competitive atmosphere, which in turn increases feelings of exclusion. This work has helped clarify the emotional and cognitive challenges that i-deals can create for both recipients and their coworkers. However, what remains largely underexplored is how i-deals affect the workplace as a social system—that is, how they influence workplace relationship and cooperation. Existing studies, including Ng’s, tend to emphasize the risks posed by i-deals, but they do not fully address how these risks are actually dealt with inside organizations. In particular, we know little about whether and how organizations attempt to resist or counteract the spread of individualism that i-deals may promote. In this study, we conceptualize workplace individualization as a gradual erosion of collective relational norms—such as mutual support, shared responsibility, and collaborative orientation—that traditionally sustain organizational cohesion. This view builds on prior sociological and organizational literature, which describes individualization as a condition where standardized roles and group-based obligations give way to personalized expectations, increased autonomy, and competition (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Sennett, 1998). In the context of work, this shift often manifests through the weakening of shared values and the reconfiguration of employee relationships around self-interest and market logic (Bal & Dóci, 2018; Bal & Hornung, 2019). While previous research has primarily discussed individualization as a macro-level cultural trend, our study investigates how i-deals—through mechanisms such as psychological entitlement (Wu et al., 2022 ) and malicious envy (Van de Ven et al., 2012)—can produce micro-level relational disruptions that, over time, accumulate into workplace individualization. By anchoring this concept in concrete relational dynamics, we aim to contribute a more actionable understanding of how individualism unfolds within organizations. This study seeks to fill that gap. By examining how i-deals operate in practice within organizations, we aim to understand not only how they challenge workplace cohesion, but also how people inside organizations respond to those challenges. In doing so, we offer a more comprehensive view of the relational consequences of i-deals—not only as sources of tension, but also as opportunities for rebuilding and adaptation. To address these gaps, this study poses two research questions: RQ1 How do received and witnessed i-deals shape employee reactions and influence workplace cooperation? RQ2 How do organizations mitigate or amplify these effects of i-deals? By addressing these questions, this research aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of i-deals, their ethical implications, and their role in shaping workplace environments. It seeks to offer both theoretical insights and practical strategies for fostering cohesion and justice in increasingly individualized organizational contexts. Building on the prior research outlined above, this study attempts to makes two key contributions. First, this research bridges the gap between the received i-deals and witnessing others’ i-deals literature, which have traditionally been treated as independent streams. By examining how these pathways interact, the study provides a more comprehensive understanding of i-deals’ impact on workplace dynamics, particularly their role in fostering individualistic behaviors and attitudes. This integrative perspective addresses a critical gap in the existing literature and highlights the need for a more holistic approach to studying i-deals. Second, this study advances theoretical understanding by identifying the mechanisms through which i-deals contribute to workplace individualism. Psychological entitlement among i-dealers and malicious envy among coworkers have been shown to be key drivers of this process. By focusing on these mechanisms, this research elucidates the unintended consequences of i-deals and provides a foundation for developing strategies to mitigate their negative effects. METHOD To investigate our research questions, we adopted a qualitative, person-centered, and inductive design. This approach enabled us to access how individuals interpret and respond to i-deals within their social and organizational contexts. Specifically, we followed the principles of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), using iterative cycles of data collection and analysis to build theory from empirical observations. Our strategy was informed by the "twist cone" approach suggested by Murphy and colleagues (2017), which promotes an evolving dialogue between emergent data and existing theory. This framework allowed us to incorporate theoretical concepts as they became relevant during analysis while remaining grounded in participants’ lived experiences, consistent with the dual-track logic of exploratory research (Zwank et al., 2022 ). Research Context This study was conducted in four companies operating in Japan and Vietnam. While existing research on i-deals has predominantly focused on Western organizational contexts, our study explores i-deals in two non-Western, collectivist societies in Asia. Both Japan and Vietnam are characterized by cultural norms that emphasize group harmony, social cohesion, and interdependence (Hofstede, 2001 ). These cultural values make Asian organizational contexts especially relevant for investigating the dynamics and consequences of individualized employment arrangements. For companies in both Japan and Vietnam, a pressing challenge lies in balancing global competitiveness with local cultural values. On one hand, firms are increasingly expected to attract and retain top talent by offering individualized, market-driven incentives such as i-deals—a trend rooted in neoliberal labor practices (Rousseau, 2005; Bal & Dóci, 2018). On the other hand, these organizations must also sustain the collectivist norms that underpin trust, cohesion, and long-term commitment within the workplace. This tension makes these companies particularly suitable sites for examining how i-deals shape, and are shaped by, the interplay between individualization and relational embeddedness in collectivist cultures. This research is particularly concerned with the tension between collectivist cultural foundations and the individualized nature of i-deals. As outlined in the introduction, i-deals are closely associated with neoliberal values and increasing workplace individualism. By focusing on organizations in Japan and Vietnam—contexts that are generally more collectivist (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). —our research design explores how such individualistic practices unfold in environments culturally oriented toward the group. Although our study includes companies from both countries, our goal is not to provide a direct cross-national comparison. Rather, we aim to generate insights into how i-deals are experienced and interpreted in organizational settings where collective values remain salient, and to examine how organizational members respond to the challenges posed by increasing individualization. By selecting companies from two distinct Asian economies—each with its own institutional history and management practices—we provide a culturally informed basis for exploring how i-deals function in workplaces shaped by collective orientations. This approach allows us to highlight both shared cultural logics and the variety of organizational responses to individualization without reducing the analysis to national contrast. Participants and Data Collection To understand how i-deals affect not only their recipients but also the broader social context in which they are embedded, we adopted a multi-stakeholder perspective (Liao et al., 2016; Ng & Feldman, 2010). Specifically, we interviewed four types of organizational actors: (1) i-deal recipients, (2) supervisors who granted the i-deals, (3) human resource staff, and (4) coworkers who observed the granting of i-deals. This design allowed us to capture the interplay between individualized arrangements and collective dynamics from multiple vantage points. Table 1 provides an overview of the main characteristics of the organizations and participants in this study. Table 1 Information about sample organizations Size (employees) Company age (years) Industry Head office location Interview location Company A 5,500 80 Trading Tokyo (Japan) Hanoi (Vietnam) Company B 4,000 30 IT Tokyo (Japan) Tokyo (Japan) Company C 2,000 20 Construction and civil engineering Hanoi (Vietnam) Hanoi (Vietnam) Company D 250 20 Automation Solutions Hanoi (Vietnam) Hanoi (Vietnam) ※ The number of employees and age is an approximate figure to ensure the anonymity of the companies. In total, 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted across four companies (Table 2 ). The selection of these companies was purposive rather than random. All four had introduced i-deals in recent years, and we selected them based on preliminary findings that indicated differing organizational responses to such arrangements. In three cases (Companies A, C, and D), the granting of i-deals had introduced subtle tensions into workplace relationships—such as concerns about justice or feelings of ambivalence among coworkers—but had not escalated to visible conflict or employee turnover. In contrast, Company B represented a rare case where the introduction of multiple i-deals—mainly financial incentives offered to high-performing engineers recruited from other firms—triggered clear resistance among existing staff, including cynical attitudes and eventual employee resignations. By including this more extreme case alongside more moderate ones, we were able to compare how i-deals function under varying degrees of relational strain. This sampling strategy allowed us to explore both the common patterns and the diverse consequences of i-deals in organizational contexts, enabling richer theoretical insight. At Companies A, B, and C, we identified high-performing employees (i-dealers) through recommendations from the human resources department. We then interviewed their direct supervisors and relevant colleagues who were not i-dealers themselves. Company A had five interviewees (two i-dealers, two supervisors, and one HR manager); Company B had three (one i-dealer, one supervisor, and one coworker); and Company C had four (one i-dealer, two HR staff, and one HR manager). Company D was an exception, where only the HR manager and Group CEO were interviewed due to limited access to other personnel. All interviews were conducted either face-to-face or online. Those at Company B were in Japanese, while those at Companies A, C, and D were conducted in a mix of Japanese and Vietnamese, with bilingual support from the research team. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Verbatim transcripts and detailed interview notes were used as the primary data sources, with accuracy confirmed by participants when necessary (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006 ). To ensure confidentiality, all identifying information was anonymized. We explained to respondents that 'i-deals' refer to customized working conditions negotiated between employees and supervisors, consistent with prior literature (e.g., Gachayeva et al., 2024 ). Interview guides were informed by our research questions and the existing literature on i-deals, while allowing for emerging insights. All participants were assured that the study was academic and that their responses would remain confidential. Table 2 List of participants Participants code Role Gender Organization code Nationality A-1 HR Manager Female A Vienamise A-2 Supervisor Male A Japanese A-3 Supervisor Male A Japanese A-4 I-dealer Female A Vienamise A-5 I-dealer Male A Vienamise B-1 HR Manager Male B Japanese B-2 I-dealer Male B Japanese B-3 Coworker Male B Japanese C-1 HR Manager Male C Vietnamese C-2 HR staff Female C Vietnamese C-3 HR staff Female C Vietnamese C-4 I-dealer Female C Vietnamese D-1 HR Manager Male D Vietnamese D-2 Group CEO Male D Vietnamese Data analysis We employed a qualitative analysis strategy that integrates the grounded theorizing tradition (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with the structured flexibility of the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013 ). This approach aligns with Murphy and cooleagues' (2017) twist cone framework and Zwank and colleagues’ ( 2022 ) application of a tabula gemini logic—an analytic stance that enables researchers to combine inductive coding with theoretical sensitivity. First, we applied the tabula rasa logic of the Gioia method to inductively derive first-order codes based on informants’ own words and perspectives. In parallel, and in order to meaningfully connect our findings to established theory, we engaged in theory-informed coding using sensitizing concepts from prior literature. Specifically, we drew on research concerning social comparison and procedural justice to refine and label emerging second-order themes. This dual-track strategy enabled us to surface novel insights grounded in data while also building theoretical bridges to existing constructs. The analysis proceeded through constant comparison, both within and across cases, adhering to the grounded theory principle of “theoretical sampling through continual contrast” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Coding was carried out independently by multiple researchers, followed by iterative group discussions to ensure consistency and depth of interpretation. Discrepancies were resolved through team deliberation and further engagement with raw data. Building on the above methodological approach, our analysis clarified both the intended and unintended consequences of i-deals. In particular, it enabled us to examine how individualized work arrangements contribute to workplace individualization in Asian companies with collectivist cultures, and how organizational members attempt to address or resist these tendencies. Through this dual lens, we were able to illuminate the dynamic interplay between the diffusion of individualism and the strategies for maintaining relational and collective cohesion. RESULTS Our analysis revealed that the individualization of the workplace triggered by i-deals operates primarily through two psychological mechanisms: psychological entitlement among recipients and malicious envy among coworkers. These dynamics gradually erode cooperative norms and workplace cohesion. To mitigate these effects, organizations employ three complementary mechanisms: (1) reshaping institutional conditions (e.g., transparent evaluations, accessibility, and commoditization), which provide cognitive legitimacy for i-deals; (2) preventing social comparison, which regulates the emotional impact of status differentials; and (3) taking an ethical/relational lens, which functions as a metacognitive lens that reshapes how i-deals are interpreted. Importantly, we found that the first two mechanisms, though necessary, were not sufficient. Only in cases where the ethical/relational lens was present did organizations successfully buffer the divisive effects of i-deals. The individualization of the workplace In all four companies, interviewees mentioned that offering i-deals could lead to upward comparisons among colleagues who observed them, and could eventually cause feelings of malicious envy. (By observing others receiving idiosyncratic deals) there are times when someone's feelings get a little frayed, or when a certain few people are momentarily tormented by noise. There are times when you hear people say, “That person has moved on.” This is especially true for members of the same team or department. (omission) You feel, “So, what about me?” (A-3) In those situations, I don't know if the word “envy” is the right one, but I feel like “Why not me, but that person? I think that's only natural. (C-1) Similarly, in all four companies, employees also reported that being offered i-deals would lead to the i-dealer’s making downward comparisons with their colleagues, and this would lead to a sense of entitlement. However, such a sense of entitlement, at least in Asia, does not seem to manifest itself in direct actions, but rather in more subtle ways. I think there are cases like that (i.e. cases where individuals who receive i-deals start to think of themselves as special) even in Vietnamese companies. If they receive idiosyncratic deals, why do they think they are excellent and special? I think that could happen to anyone, in any company, and we can't blame them for it. (C-1) I think that Japanese people, or perhaps it would be better to say Asian people, don't take an arrogant attitude or look down on other people just because they have received such treatment (i.e. idiosyncratic deals). However, it is possible that a sense of entitlement may grow in the depths of their hearts, and this may manifest itself in their behavior, albeit in a subtle way. In fact, I have seen such cases in my company. (A-3) The i-dealer, who is the direct beneficiary of i-deals, and the coworkers, who do not directly benefit from i-deals (although they are not victims), are in completely different positions. Nevertheless, the sense of entitlement felt by the i-dealer and the malicious envy felt by the coworkers lead them both to behave in a similar way in the workplace, in terms of uncooperative behavior. For example, company B, in order to respond to business expansion, hired engineers who were among the best in the industry from other companies and implemented several i-deals centered on financial incentives. As a result, existing members became cynical and some employees left the company. The problem is that it (envy) can lead to a cynical mentality and reduce cooperative behavior in the workplace. If someone is in trouble at work, we naturally want to help them. But what if there is someone who is better off than you? It's not surprising that you might think to yourself, “There's no need for me to go out of my way to help that person” or “There's no need to help someone who is in a better position than me.” (B-3) What we need to be careful about is how people with this kind of mentality will act afterwards. Some people who receive idiosyncratic deals think, “So I'll work even harder” or “I'll contribute more to the company”, but there are also people who think, “There's no need to work any harder than this” or “I'm already contributing just by being here”. Some of these people end up becoming more interested in increasing their own profits. (B-1) Organizational strategies to handle negative effects of i-deals Through multiple interviews with four companies, three themes emerged that are related to factors that mitigate he negative effects of i-deals: reshaping institutional conditions, canceling social comparison, and taking an ethical/relational lens. Of the four companies, all three themes were observed in companies A, C, and D, but in company B, the existence of the ethical/relational lens could not be confirmed. This finding suggests that while institutional conditions and cancelling social comparison are necessary conditions for mitigating the negative effects of i-deals, they are not sufficient. Reshaping institutional conditions Four important themes emerged regarding institutional conditions are: multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, accessibility, and commoditization of i-deals (Table 3 ). Of these, multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, and accessibility are themes related to the so called “procedural justice” (Gachayeva et al., 2024 ). Multifaceted Evaluation The findings suggest that when i-deals are granted based on evaluations that incorporate multiple perspectives rather than the discretionary judgment of a single evaluator, both the risk of entitlement among i-dealers and the likelihood of malicious envy among colleagues are significantly reduced. Specifically, the following three subcategories play a crucial role. Multiple Evaluators The involvement of multiple, independent evaluators in the decision-making process ensures that the granting of an i-deal is based on objective and impartial evaluation, rather than personal preference. This plurality and independence ensures that i-dealers are aware that the i-deal was awarded based on a fair evaluation, rather than preferential selection, and so are less likely to develop a sense of entitlement. Similarly, their colleagues are also less likely to perceive the decision as arbitrary, and more likely to see it as fair, reducing feelings of malicious envy. Diversity of Reference Information By incorporating multiple reference points and performance indicators rather than relying on a singular evaluation metric, the legitimacy of the decision is strengthened. I-dealers are more likely to see the granted i-deal as a reward for their multifaceted contributions, rather than as an arbitrary benefit, reducing their sense of entitlement. Likewise, colleagues who observe that different dimensions of performance are considered in the evaluation process are more likely to perceive the outcome as fair rather than as favoritism, thus lowering the risk of malicious envy. Transparency of Evaluation Ensuring transparency in the evaluation process for granting i-deals also plays a significant role in mitigating entitlement and envy. Transparency consists of two key aspects: Transparency of Evaluation Procedures When the procedural steps through which i-deals are granted are well-defined and clearly communicated, i-dealers are less likely to perceive themselves as receiving special treatment. Instead, they understand that their i-deal resulted from a structured and standardized decision-making process. Likewise, colleagues are more likely to view the process as legitimate and procedural rather than discretionary or arbitrary, making them less prone to malicious envy. Transparency of Evaluation Criteria When the criteria for granting i-deals are explicitly defined and made accessible to employees, i-dealers are more likely to perceive their i-deal as an earned reward based on clear standards, rather than as an entitlement. At the same time, colleagues recognize that i-deals are not exclusive privileges but attainable opportunities for those who meet specific conditions, reducing feelings of unjustice and resentment. Accessibility Clarifying accessibility of i-deals—how employees can qualify for such arrangements—further mitigates entitlement and envy. This factor consists of two subcategories: Clarification of Access Conditions When employees clearly understand what conditions must be met in order to be eligible for i-deals, i-dealers perceive their granted i-deal as a result of merit-based selection rather than arbitrary favoritism, reducing their sense of entitlement. Additionally, colleagues, recognizing that they too have the opportunity to qualify for i-deals, are less likely to feel that certain individuals are unfairly privileged, thereby reducing malicious envy. Denial of Permanence If it is explicitly communicated that i-deals are not permanent and can be revoked or reassigned based on changing circumstances, i-dealers are less likely to perceive their i-deal as an indefinite privilege, mitigating the risk of entitlement. Similarly, colleagues who understand that i-deals are not fixed benefits but fluid arrangements subject to reassessment are less likely to perceive them as inherently unfair, reducing negative emotional reactions such as envy. All of the above factors provide both parties with the perception that the i-deals being offered are reasonable. This sense of rationality makes the i-dealer aware that the i-deals they have been given have been provided through legitimate procedures and are therefore not permanent. Simultaneously, it also raises the awareness among their colleagues that the i-deals have been provided through authorized procedures, and that they too have the potential to receive them if they meet the same conditions. Commoditization of i-deals Findings from the interviews alsoindicate that increasing the frequency of i-deals and similar arrangements in the workplace (Commoditization of i-deals) also serves as a mechanism for mitigating (1) the i-dealer’s sense of entitlement and (2) malicious envy among colleagues who witness i-deals. Unlike the previously discussed factors—Multifaceted Evaluation, Transparency of Evaluation, and Clarification of Accessibility—which function by enhancing the perceived justice of the evaluation process, commoditization of i-deals reduces entitlement and envy by positioning i-deals as an ordinary workplace practice rather than an exceptional privilege. Commoditization of i-deals consists of the following three subcategories: Heavy Use of Individuality Providing personalized support to employees in ways beyond simply granting i-deals—such as conducting frequent one-on-one meetings to discuss career aspirations and offering individualized development opportunities—plays a significant role in reducing entitlement and envy. When employees perceive that the organization routinely engages in individual career discussions and support, i-dealers are less likely to feel that they alone are receiving special treatment, thereby reducing their sense of entitlement. When employees recognize that individualized attention is not exclusive to i-dealers, but rather a general practice applied to everyone, they are less likely to feel resentment toward those who receive i-deals, thus mitigating malicious envy. Increase in Frequency Expanding both the frequency and the scope of i-deals granted within an organization contributes to normalizing i-deals as a common workplace arrangement rather than a rare privilege. When i-deals are granted more frequently and to a larger number of employees, i-dealers perceive that they are not uniquely privileged but rather just a part of a broader, merit-based practice, which reduces their sense of entitlement. As i-deals become more widespread and accessible, colleagues are less likely to view them as an exclusive benefit reserved for a select few, thereby reducing their feelings of envy. The findings reveal that Commoditization of i-deals mitigates i-dealers’ entitlement and colleagues’ envy not by reinforcing procedural justice, but by reducing the perception among them that i-deals are special privileges. While Multifaceted Evaluation, Transparency of Evaluation, and Clarification of Accessibility function through the ensuring of fair distribution and clear criteria, Commoditization of i-deals operates through diluting the exclusivity of i-deals and embedding them into routine organizational practices. Table 3 Categories and representative data: Aggerate dimensions Second-order themes First-order themes Descriptions Quotes Reshaping institutional conditions Multifaceted evaluation Multiple evaluators Multiple people are involved in performance evaluations. There is a human resources manager for each business. They are responsible for ensuring that the right people are in the right places within the business, and for selecting the right people for the job. At the same time, the human resources managers at our head office are responsible for human resources across the business. This means that we evaluate human resources from different perspectives. (B-1) When evaluating employees, we base our decisions on two factors. The first is the individual's abilities. More specifically, this refers to the degree of compatibility with the C culture and the high level of management ability as a leader. The second factor is work execution ability, in other words, whether or not the person has specialist knowledge and ability. This is measured through a 360-degree evaluation. (omission) The important thing is that the evaluation is not carried out by just one superior, but by several superiors, colleagues and subordinates. A number of people are picked out and they each carry out an evaluation. (C-1) Basically, the human resources department makes the decisions. However, when hiring star-class employees, the decision has to be made by someone higher up. This is very clear. It is clearly decided. There is a hiring committee for hiring star employees. In such cases, the HR department not only hires the person, but also forms an evaluation committee, reports the hiring process to that committee, and asks them to score the final score. If the HR department thinks that this person is likely to become a star, we will inform the committee. After informing the committee and having them look at various things, if the final decision is to hire this person, the HR department will create the conditions to offer to that person on their behalf, and the committee will make the final decision. (C-1) We also conduct 360-degree evaluations of employees, not just by their superiors. Subordinates evaluate each other. (D-2) Diversity of reference information Conducting evaluations based on a wide range of information In addition to the information on the effects of personnel changes that is provided once every six months, we also take into account the results of the internal survey that we conduct every month. This is a quantitative measure of the conditions related to an individual's work. In addition, qualitative information is also important. This is the real key. The members of the human resources department try to go out to the workplace and interview employees whenever they have the time. The information obtained in this way is also shared among the human resources members. In some cases, we also consult with the executives. In any case, we evaluate talented people based on a variety of information (B-1). Transparency of evaluation Transparency of evaluation procedures The evaluation process is open to employees There are clear rules regarding recruitment. We try to stay within the framework of these rules as much as possible when negotiating with job applicants. At C, all the rules regarding personnel recruitment and the framework for recruitment are made public. So all employees know what criteria are used, what procedures are followed, what benefits are given for which jobs, and so on. They also know what salary level they will be paid when they join the company. (C-1) Transparency of evaluation criteria The evaluation criteria are open to employees There are three criteria for the personnel evaluation: culture, leadership ability, and professional ability. Each of these has a set percentage. Basically, you get a score for each of the three abilities, based on the set percentages. If the overall score is high, that means the person is contributing to the company. (C-1) It is important to clearly share the idea that “the company needs people like this”. It is not just that the boss or the HR department thinks this, but it is important that the members share this idea on a daily basis. If, for example, it is understood that strengthening DX is an urgent issue, then it will be logically correct to treat employees who excel in DX well. (A-2) Basically, we don't give people high salaries that exceed this level (the clearly defined salary range). Even if you are contributing to a project team rather than a line job, when the project is over, it will be possible to visualize how much profit you have increased for the company, and to a certain extent, you will be able to see how much you will be paid. (D-2) Accecibility Clarification of access conditions The conditions for receiving i-deals must be clearly stated and made public. Not only do they properly evaluate those who have made efforts that match the needs of the company and achieved results, but they also provide them with tangible opportunities for the future. For example, they might assign them to a position that involves work outside of Vietnam. By making their achievements and rewards visible in this way, it becomes a model case that can be shared with other members. I think it makes it clear what you can do and what you can achieve. (A-2) For example, in the case of A-4, before offering her an idiosyncratic deal, she was made to take a test (on a subject that was important to the company) and she passed it. The fact that she passed a difficult and important test would not only be known within Vietnam, but also reach the ears of the HR department in Singapore. This would allow the members to clearly understand that “she is excellent” and “she is making an effort to meet the company's reporting requirements”. This would mean that there would be no room for argument. (A-2) Denial the permanence Denying the permanence of i-deals The pool of people who receive special education is fluid. This year, someone is on the list, but next year, that person may be off the list. Adjustments are made every year, so there is no such thing as the person becoming arrogant because of it. (A-1) Commoditization of i-deals Heavy use of idiosyncrasy The perception that the i-deals are not permanent At our company, we carefully create a career path for each individual. Once a year, the employee and their supervisor have a one-on-one interview to discuss the employee's career aspirations. After hearing the employee's wishes, the human resources department compiles the employee's wishes and creates a career path just for that person. (omission) During the one-on-one discussion with the supervisor, I ask them to give me their opinions on how to improve their work environment or work efficiency. (A-1) Increase in frequency i-deals are offered frequently In fact, both mid-level and senior staff as well as young staff are frequently selected. In other words, there are many cases of selection within the organization. It is not only young staff who are selected. Everyone has the chance. (B-1) Preventing social comparison Cancellation of upward comparison ※ Get them to look outside To get people outside the workplace or organization to set a point of comparison or a standard for evaluation I tell them to look at the market and look up. It's important to make sure they don't compare themselves with their colleagues. You need to make them realize that you're not competing with your colleagues sitting next to you, but with your rivals in the market, and that the people you need to show your excellence to are not your colleagues, but your customers. It's important to empathize with their concerns about how they're evaluated by their colleagues, but to make them realize that this is actually a small thing, and to make them look at themselves from a bird's eye view. (B-1) Lowering the interaction with the i-dealer Avoid direct comparisons by reducing the interdependence of members' work. At my workplace, each member has their own specific area of work. For example, Mr. A is in charge of business X, and Mr. B is in charge of business Y. So there are no conflicts. Of course, when it comes to promotions, it becomes a zero-sum competition, but even in that case, it doesn't mean that Mr. A has won over Mr. B in all aspects. It's a kind of competition, but since it's not a direct competition, there are almost no conflicts. (A-4) Cancellation of downward comparison ※ Get them to look upward Forming humility through making i-dealer look up We deliberately show (to younger members) that employees who have been with the company for over 20 years and are at the executive level are still continuing to produce results, are still continuing to learn humbly, and are still working hard and honestly. I think that is the secret to maintaining the purity of a culture of “continuing to work hard with humility”. (B-2) We deliberately encourage members to set high goals. Let's say they achieve “result X”. But when you look to the side, there may be someone who has achieved “X + 1”. We bring the members' perspective to such superior people, in direct dialogue. Then, for example, we have them meet directly with superior people in higher positions, or have them make direct contact. We say things like, “Give him some advice”. (A-3) Linguistic persuasion forming humirity through linguistic Persuasion I think there are cases like that (cases where members lose their humility by receiving idiosyncratic deals) even in Vietnamese companies. However, we are able to discover them at an early stage. There is a dialogue between the boss and the subordinate once every three months, and we are able to discover things to a certain extent at that time. If the person is bragging about themselves or becoming arrogant, the boss or the surrounding members will correct their way of thinking through conversation. (C-1) Taking an ethical/relational lens instilling ethical/relational value the value that prioritizes organization over the individual To instill a value system that prioritizes the organization over the individual I think that the key is something a little different, because an individual is not a tool or a machine for a company. In the case of C, that is culture. (C-1) All employees who join C have to abide by these core values. No matter how jealous you may feel, you are still a member of C, so you have to act in accordance with the ideas and actions that C requires. You have to respect the company's rules and policies. C expects you to think about the company first and suppress your own needs. (C-1) Becoming morally good To instill the value that we should be good ethically We created a pocketbook as a way of promoting our corporate culture. One of the core values in the pocketbook is “become a better person”. All employees understand and follow this. If someone becomes arrogant and stops cooperating with others, or if they become so proud of their own excellence that they no longer fit the C value, we ask them to leave. (C-1) There are five values that we cherish. One of these is “to become more than you were yesterday through learning”. This means aiming to become a better version of yourself than you were yesterday, rather than trying to beat or overtake someone else. If this culture is firmly established, I think that employees will be able to remain humble to a certain extent, and that human relationships will improve. (D-2) Communication emphasizing ethics/relationships Avoiding the use of competitive metaphors To avoid using language and metaphors related to competition and winning at work. It's important not to use words like “competition”, “contest” or “promotion” too much in your everyday life. If you talk about these things all the time, your colleagues will inevitably see you as “the other side of the competition”, “the enemy in the contest” or “the person who was promoted first”. I think that having fewer conversations like this leads to good relationships. (A-4) formation of collectivity through communication Emphasizing that one cannot do a job alone. Basically, important conversations between members of the workplace and their superiors are one-on-one. Try to speak one-on-one during working hours. (omission)... As a basic premise, I emphasize that our work is not something that can be completed by one person, but is something that is done by a team. (omission)... Even if that person is a standout ace, it is necessary for them to know from the start that everyone's help is needed in order to achieve results. (A-2) We make a point of having people work together with a variety of people, rather than leaving everything to one person. This prevents employees from becoming competitive with each other, and also stops them thinking that they are the only ones contributing or that they are special. (D-2) * Indicates tabula gemini concepts. This study highlights the importance of not only establishing procedural justice but also normalizing i-deals as a common practice within the organization. By doing so, organizations can reduce the likelihood of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement and prevent colleagues from perceiving i-deals as an unfair privilege, thereby fostering a more harmonious workplace environment. Preventing social comparison Cancellation of upward comparison A primary driver of malicious envy among colleagues who witness i-deals is upward comparison, where they compare themselves unfavorably to the i-dealer and perceive the i-deal as an unfair advantage. Upward comparison intensifies perceptions of injustice and resentment, potentially leading to workplace tensions. This study identifies two key mechanisms that mitigate upward comparison: Get them to look outside and Lower the interaction with the i-dealer . These mechanisms function by broadening the pool of social comparison targets or increasing social distance from the comparison target, thereby reducing the intensity of envy-driven social comparison. Get them to look outside shifts the reference point for social comparison from the i-dealer to external benchmarks, such as industry standards, competitors, or professionals in different career paths. By encouraging employees to compare their career trajectories and opportunities with external references rather than internal colleagues, organizations can dilute the perceived impact of an individual i-deal. Employees who see that various organizations implement flexible work arrangements or performance-based incentives are less likely to view i-deals as unique advantages granted to specific individuals. To facilitate this, interviewed organizations have successfully promote external networking opportunities, share industry best practices, and provide comparative insights on workforce trends. By expanding the frame of reference beyond immediate workplace comparisons, their employees were less likely to fixate on the advantages received by their colleagues. Lowering the interaction with the i-dealers reduces direct social interactions between colleagues and the i-dealers to decrease the frequency and intensity of social comparison. Research on social comparison suggests that frequent exposure to a comparison target heightens envy, making it important to manage the proximity of employees to high-visibility i-dealers (Marescaux et al., 2019). This does not imply isolating i-dealers but rather strategically diversifying employees' comparison points by increasing exposure to different colleagues and work environments. Interviewed managers revealed that their organizations implement this through various methods such as promoting cross-team collaborations, rotating project assignments, or restructuring team dynamics to prevent employees from repeatedly comparing themselves to the same individuals. By creating a more fluid social environment, these organizations were able to diffuse the focus on i-dealers and prevent upward comparison from escalating into malicious envy. Both mechanisms work by redirecting employees’ focus away from direct comparisons with i-dealers, either by shifting their reference points externally or by reducing social proximity to the i-dealers. These strategies ultimately help prevent the escalation of envy and maintain a more cohesive workplace environment. Cancellation of downward comparison One of the primary causes of an i-dealer’s sense of entitlement is downward comparison, where the i-dealers perceive themselves as superior to their colleagues because they have received an i-deal. This type of comparison can lead the i-dealers to believe that their success is entirely self-earned and that they inherently deserve special treatment. However, this study identifies two key mechanisms that mitigate downward comparison: Get them to look upward and Linguistic persuasion . Both mechanisms play a crucial role in cultivating humility, which in turn reduce the likelihood of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement. Get them to look upward encourages i-dealers to shift their focus toward individuals who have achieved even greater success. By directing their attention to higher-performing peers, industry leaders, or organizational role models, i-dealers are reminded that there are still higher levels of achievement to strive for. This realization helps them recognize that their i-deals are not an inherent right but rather an opportunity for further growth. Strategies to implement this include introducing high-achieving role models, setting aspirational performance benchmarks, and encouraging comparisons with top performers across the industry. By continuously being driven to look upward, i-dealers develop a greater sense of humility and become less likely to perceive themselves as uniquely deserving of special treatment. Linguistic persuasion refers to the use of managerial dialogue to shape the i-dealer’s perception of their i-deal. Through carefully framed conversations, managers reinforced the notion that i-deals were not personal privileges but rather contextual adjustments made in response to organizational needs and expectations. Additionally, interviewed managers emphasized the collective contributions of teams and organizational support structures that enable individual success. By hearing from management that their i-deals were just a part of a broader strategy rather than an exception granted to them alone, i-dealers were less likely to develop an inflated sense of entitlement. Both mechanisms contribute to cultivating humility, which mitigates downward comparison and reduces the likelihood of an i-dealer perceiving himself as inherently more deserving than their colleagues. The dual nature of procedural justice This study confirms that procedural justice plays a crucial role in cultivating humility in i-dealers and mitigate malicious envy among coworkers. When i-deals are granted through a transparent and fair evaluation process, i-dealers perceive their advantages as a legitimate outcome of an equitable decision-making system rather than as an arbitrary privilege. This recognition reinforces that their success is not solely due to their own efforts, but is formally acknowledged within the organizational framework, giving them a sense of self-justification and accountability. Similarly, coworkers who witness i-deals granted through a procedurally fair system may experience reduced distrust and resentment, recognizing that these special arrangements are based on clearly defined criteria rather than favoritism. However, this study also reveals that procedural justice can paradoxically amplify both an i-dealer’s sense of entitlement and coworkers’ malicious envy. Procedural justice reinforces the perception—among both i-dealers and their coworkers—that i-deals are not arbitrary privileges but rationally justified and institutionally sanctioned special treatments. From the i-dealer’s perspective, procedural justice strengthens the belief that their i-deal was granted as a legitimate reward for their merit rather than as an exception. Consequently, i-dealers are more likely to see their i-deal not as a temporary benefit but rather as an entitlement reflecting their intrinsic value to the organization. The more they internalize the idea that they were selected through a fair and structured process, the more they may come to believe they deserve continuous special treatment. Rather than fostering gratitude or humility, procedural justice can sometimes reinforce an inflated sense of entitlement. From the coworkers’ perspective, procedural justice can also intensify malicious envy rather than alleviate it. When an i-deal appears to be unfair, coworkers may rationalize the disparity by attributing it to arbitrary decision-making or managerial bias, allowing them to dismiss the outcome as an unjustified anomaly. However, when procedural justice is evident, this psychological escape route disappears. That is, coworkers are forced to acknowledge that the i-dealer’s advantage was conferred through a legitimate and merit-based process, which may lead to a painful realization that they were not deemed worthy of similar treatment. This, in turn, reinforces upward comparison, leading to greater dissatisfaction and resentment. The more an organization emphasizes procedural justice, the more coworkers may be confronted with the reality that they were objectively deemed less deserving than the i-dealer, intensifying their feelings of envy and perceived inferiority. It is of course important to have clear evaluation criteria, to have a well-organized process, and to evaluate impartially and selflessly. If you don't do this, no one will be satisfied. However, an evaluation that leaves no room for argument is cruel in a sense. It's fine for those who are highly evaluated, but for those who are not evaluated, there is no way to make excuses. Such an evaluation does not allow members to make excuses such as “it's because the boss isn't looking properly” or “it just happened like that”. (B-3) We are proud of the fact that we have a proper personnel evaluation system in place at our company. That being said, our evaluations are also strict. From the employees' point of view, it is difficult to disregard the evaluation that has been handed down or to deny the differences between oneself and someone else (C-1). These findings suggest that procedural justice alone is insufficient to mitigate an i-dealer’s sense of entitlement or to prevent malicious envy among coworkers. The dual nature of procedural justice—its ability to both reduce and exacerbate these psychological reactions—highlights the need for additional mechanisms to regulate the social consequences of i-deals. As previously discussed, preventing downward comparison plays a crucial role in addressing an i-dealer’s entitlement. Encouraging i-dealers to shift their focus toward higher-performing individuals (Get them to look upward) and fostering humility through managerial discourse (Linguistic persuasion) can counteract the entitlement effects reinforced by procedural justice. Similarly, cancellation of upward comparison is essential for mitigating malicious envy among coworkers. Shifting coworkers’ comparative focus away from the i-dealer and toward external benchmarks (Get them to look outside) or reducing direct interactions with the i-dealer (Lower the interaction with the i-dealer) can weaken social comparison intensity, preventing procedural justice from fueling resentment. Thus, when organizations aim to enhance procedural justice in the distribution of i-deals, it is crucial to complement it with additional interventions that shape perceptions and regulate social comparisons. Procedural justice alone may not be enough; organizations must also cultivate humility among i-dealers and restructure comparative frameworks to prevent entitlement and envy. By integrating these complementary mechanisms, organizations can preserve both justice and social harmony in the workplace. Taking an ethical/ relational lens In the process by which i-deals may promote workplace individualization, organizational members engage in mitigating efforts that operate on multiple levels. First, Reshaping institutional conditions provide a logical interpretive framework through which specific i-deals are recognized as legitimate. Narratives emphasizing transparent access, justice, and multifaceted evaluation help establish the organizational legitimacy of these arrangements, thereby fostering acceptance among both recipients and coworkers. Second, Preventing social comparison works to suppress negative emotional reactions—such as malicious envy or entitlement—by cognitively decoupling self-evaluations from those of others. This is often achieved by framing others' i-deals as based on different efforts, roles, or circumstances. Instilling ethical/relational value However, while these two mechanisms help prevent or buffer individualistic responses, they are not sufficient on their own. They do little to shift the broader interpretive frame through which i-deals are perceived. This is where the third factor— Taking an ethical or relational lens —plays a critical moderating role. The value that prioritizes organization over the individual encourages employees to think beyond their personal interests or career ambitions, instead aligning their decisions with the collective interests of the company. As a result, i-deals are not perceived as personal privileges but as rational adjustments made for the effective functioning of the organization. Similarly, the emphasis on becoming morally good fosters the idea that receiving an i-deal is not merely about individual gain but is connected to ethical behavior and fulfilling the organization’s expectations. When employees internalize the notion that i-deals are not arbitrary rewards but tools that support those who uphold moral and organizational values, the risk of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement is reduced. Additionally, coworkers are less likely to perceive i-deals as unfair advantages, as they come to see them as an ethical and legitimate part of workplace operations, thereby mitigating malicious envy. Communication emphasizing ethics/relationthips Company A,C,D do not rely solely on top-down vision dissemination but rather emphasize dialogue between supervisors and employees to shape employees’ perceptions of i-deals. This approach focuses on workplace communication that encourages employees to interpret workplace events—such as the granting of i-deals—through a relational or ethical lens rather than a competitive or instrumental one. Two key strategies support this communication-based approach: avoiding the use of competitive metaphors and formation of collectivity through communication . Avoiding the use of competitive metaphors refers to the conscious avoidance of expressions that frame workplace relationships in terms of competition, rivalry, or opposition. Phrases such as "I am competing with that person" or "We are professional rivals" are deliberately discouraged in everyday workplace conversations. By reducing the presence of competitive language, i-deals are less likely to be framed as prizes for the winners or unfair advantages gained through competition, helping to prevent both a sense of entitlement among i-dealers and envy among their coworkers. Formation of collectivity through communication involves reinforcing the idea that no one can succeed alone and that individual achievements are made possible by the collective efforts of the team. Through regular conversations in the workplace, supervisors emphasize that organizational success is a shared effort and that i-deals should be understood as part of this collective dynamic rather than as isolated rewards for individuals. By embedding this perspective in daily communication, employees are encouraged to see i-deals not as special privileges but as rational adjustments necessary for the functioning of the team. Importantly, such ethical/relational framing was absent in Company B, where i-deals had previously contributed to the breakdown of collaboration and even employee turnover. This contrast suggests that while reshaping institutional conditions and preventing social comparisons may help reduce tensions, they are necessary but not sufficient for mitigating workplace individualization. It is the presence of an ethical or relational interpretive lens that appears to deepen and stabilize these mitigating effects, allowing organizations to buffer against the divisive potential of i-deals. Integrative Model of i-deals, individualization, and mitigating mechanism What emerges from our findings is an integrative model about individualistic drift triggered by i-deals and mechanisms of mitigation (Fig. 1 ). To mitigate the individualizing effects of i-deals, these Asian organizations employed three complementary mechanisms, each targeting a different level of interpretation. First, Reshaping institutional conditions offered a rational framework that legitimized i-deals through principles such as transparent access and multifaceted evaluation, helping recipients and coworkers view them as fair. Second, preventing social comparison worked to suppress negative emotions like envy and entitlement by cognitively distancing employees from status-based comparisons. However, these two alone proved insufficient, as they did not alter how i-deals were fundamentally understood. The third mechanism— taking an ethical or relational lens —played a meta-cognitive role by reframing i-deals as expressions of collective purpose and moral contribution. This lens deepened the effects of the other two, enabling organizations to reinterpret i-deals not as special privileges, but as aligned with shared values and team functioning. DISCUSSION Mitigating the Individualization Effect of i-deals This study investigated how i-deals may contribute to the individualization of the workplace and how organizations seek to mitigate such effects. Based on qualitative data from four Asian companies, we examined how psychological entitlement among i-dealers and malicious envy among coworkers can disrupt workplace cooperation and trigger a subtle shift toward individualistic workplace norms. Our analysis identified three key mechanisms—(1) reshaping institutional conditions, (2) preventing social comparison, and (3) taking an ethical/ relational lens—that help buffer these effects. Importantly, these mechanisms operate on distinct but complementary levels: reshaping institutional conditions contribute to cognitive legitimacy, preventing social comparison regulates emotional responses, and taking an ethical/relational lens reframe the broader metacognitive interpretation of i-deals. Our findings support previous claims that procedural justice fosters the acceptance of i-deals by both recipients and coworkers (Greenberg et al., 2004 ; Marescaux et al., 2019; Van Waeyenberg et al., 2023 ). Mechanisms such as multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, and accessibility serve to legitimize i-deals and enhance perceived fairness. However, consistent with critical perspectives in organizational justice (van Dijke et al., 2010) and public philosophy (Wolff & De-Shalit, 2007 ), we also found that procedural justice can paradoxically intensify entitlement and envy—by reinforcing the legitimacy of differential treatment, it may reduce ambiguity but increase emotional salience. To mitigate these risks, organizations must go beyond procedural justice and address the cognitive-emotional processes associated with social comparisons. Our study identified two levels of social comparison cancellation: downward comparisons (which feed i-dealer entitlement) and upward comparisons (which provoke coworker envy). Mechanisms such as promoting aspirational comparisons, reducing direct contact between coworkers and i-dealers, and reframing i-deals in the context of broader market competition helped reduce emotional tension and protected workplace harmony. Still, these first two mechanisms alone were insufficient. Only in Companies A, C, and D—where an ethical or relational lens was present—were the effects of i-deals successfully mitigated. In contrast, Company B experienced relational breakdown and turnover despite procedural fairness and social comparison reduction. This suggests that ethical/relational framing—through communicative strategies, moral metaphors, and shared values—is a critical moderator. It reframes i-deals as organizational necessities or moral contributions, not individual wins, helping to alter the metacognitive framework through which employees interpret privilege and difference. The theoretical logic behind this finding is further supported by the conceptual metaphor perspective (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). According to this theory, metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but core elements of human cognition that shape how individuals perceive and respond to the world. In workplaces where metaphors such as “career is a competition” or “workplace is a battlefield” dominate, i-deals tend to be interpreted as exclusive rewards for winners. These metaphorical framings reinforce individualistic interpretations, leading i-dealers to feel entitled and coworkers to experience envy. By contrast, when organizations deliberately promote ethical or relational metaphors—such as “shared growth” or “mutual support”—employees are more likely to see i-deals as functional tools aligned with collective goals, thereby reducing the risk of divisive responses. In this way, conceptual metaphors serve as deep interpretive frames that shape emotional and behavioral responses to workplace differentiation. Each of the three mitigation mechanisms plays a distinct role. First, institutional conditions offer cognitive legitimacy to i-deals by establishing rules, evaluation criteria, and access conditions. Second, social comparison reduction targets the emotional dynamics of entitlement and envy by disrupting direct or hostile comparisons. Third, ethical/relational lens reshape the deeper cognitive structures through which employees interpret i-deals—particularly their meaning, fairness, and relational implications. These three mechanisms are not interchangeable. The first two are necessary but insufficient without the third. The ethical/relational lens serves as a meta-frame that enables the stabilizing of justice and emotion management strategies. Each mechanism addresses a different layer of how i-deals are experienced and interpreted: rational legitimacy (cognition), emotional management, and moral framing (metacognition). Their combined implementation creates a multi-level buffer against the drift toward individualism. This study does not adopt a national comparative design. Rather, we treat the four companies as diverse organizational cases embedded in the broader cultural logics of collectivist Asia. The variation in outcomes across these companies is interpreted not as a product of national culture per se, but as evidence of organizational-level strategies that either mitigate or amplify the divisive potential of i-deals. Our findings emphasize how culturally situated but locally constructed framing practices shape the consequences of individualized employment arrangements. Contributions to Scholarship This study offers three theoretical contributions to the literature on i-deals, justice, and organizational meaning-making. First, it complicates the assumption that procedural justice is uniformly beneficial. While enhancing legitimacy (Greenberg et al., 2004 ; Marescaux et al., 2019), our findings show that procedural justic can also amplify entitlement and envy when it reinforces the visibility and certainty of unequal treatment. This supports critiques from justice research and political philosophy (van Dijke et al., 2010; Wolff & De-Shalit, 2007 ) on the unintended costs of fairness. Second, we develop an integrative model showing that three mechanisms—reshaping institutional conditions, preventing social comparison, and taking an ethical/relational lens—jointly shape how i-deals influence workplace dynamics. This framework advances prior research by linking cognitive, emotional, and interpretive processes in mitigating individualization. Third, by applying the conceptual metaphor perspective (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003), we show that metaphors significantly shape how i-deals are understood. Competitive metaphors frame i-deals as individual victories, while ethical or collective metaphors support more cooperative interpretations. This highlights the role of symbolic framing in sustaining workplace cohesion under individualized HR practices. Implications for Practice This study offers practical guidance not only on what organizations should do to mitigate the individualizing effects of i-deals, but also on how they can do so effectively. First, organizations should strengthen institutional conditions by publicly clarifying the criteria and processes for granting i-deals, conducting internal audits for fairness, and training managers to communicate decisions transparently to all stakeholders. Second, to reduce the negative emotional effects of social comparison, organizations should proactively address how employees perceive differences in treatment. This can involve presenting i-deals as responses to specific roles or responsibilities rather than as rewards for personal superiority, and minimizing opportunities for direct comparison by being mindful of who knows what and how such information is shared. Third, and most crucially, organizations should embed an ethical or relational lens into their culture by using inclusive metaphors, encouraging leaders to share stories that emphasize collective benefit, and crafting HR communications that highlight shared values. These actions work in tandem: procedural clarity builds legitimacy, social comparison management regulates emotional responses, and ethical framing reshapes employees’ interpretations. Together, they allow i-deals to support motivation without undermining relational cohesion. Limitations and Future Research A few limitations of this study merit consideration. First, our qualitative research interviews were conducted within four Asian companies, which makes it difficult to claim statistical generalizability. Future studies should examine the transferability of our findings across different cultural, industrial, or organizational contexts. Comparative studies could also explore whether similar mitigation mechanisms function differently across various institutional settings. Second, while our analysis drew on interview data from multiple stakeholders, including i-dealers, coworkers, supervisors, and HR professionals, longitudinal data would allow for a better understanding of how these perceptions evolve over time—particularly how entitlement and envy develop, stabilize, or dissipate. Third, although we identified ethical/relational lens as key moderating factors, further research is needed to understand how this lens is constructed, maintained, or disrupted in everyday organizational discourse. Future research could also explore the role of leaders and peer influencers in shaping these interpretive frames, especially in hybrid or remote work environments where shared meaning may be harder to sustain. Conclusion This study shows that i-deals, while often celebrated for their motivational and retention benefits, can also make workplace individualization escalated by triggering i-dealers’ entitlement and coworkers’ envy. The solution, as we argue, does not lie solely in procedural fairness or emotional regulation. Rather, it requires organizations to actively reshape how i-deals are framed and perceived. Institutional conditions and social comparison strategies are necessary, but not sufficient. It is the presence of ethical and relational interpretive lens—rooted in cultural metaphors and moral meaning-making that enables organizations to mitigate the divisive effects of i-deals. In doing so, organizations can protect workplace cohesion while still accommodating individual needs, ultimately ensuring that i-deals serve as instruments of cooperation rather than fragmentation Declarations All authors declare that: (1) no support, financial or otherwise, has been received from any organization that may have an interest in the submitted work; and (2) there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of Kobe University. When responding to the questionnaire, we confirm in writing that (1) responses are voluntary and that they have the right not to respond, (2) responses are to be anonymous, and (3) only the researcher has access to the responses, not the employer or human resources staff of the company to which they belong. References Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (5), 970–988. Anand, S., Hu, J., Vidyarthi, P., & Liden, R. C. (2018). Leader-member exchange as a linking pin in the idiosyncratic deals-Performance relationship in workgroups. The Leadership Quarterly , 29 (6), 698-708. Bal, P. M., & Dóci, E. (2018). Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27 (5), 536-548. Bal, P. M., & Hornung, S. (2019). Individualization of work: From psychological contracts to idiosyncratic deals. In Greap, Y., & Cooper, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychological Contract at Work. Edward Elgar Publishing. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. SAGE. Corden, A. and Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using Verbatim Quotations in Reporting Qualitative Social Research: Researchers’ Views . York: University of York. 11–4. Gachayeva, S., Murphy, S., & Aldossari, M. (2024). Through the Lens of Justice: A Qualitative Investigation into Co‐workers’ Perceptions of I‐deals. Journal of Management Studies . Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1), 15–31. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Aldine. Greenberg, J., Roberge, M. É., Ho, V. T., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Justice in idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an I-deal. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management , 23, 1–34. Ho, V. T. (2005). Social influence on evaluations of psychological contract fulfillment. Academy of Management Review , 30 (1), 113-128. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Kelly, C. M., Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., Ogbonnaya, C., Marescaux, E., & Bosch, M. J. (2020). Seeking an “i-deal” balance: Schedule-flexibility i-deals as mediating mechanisms between supervisor emotional support and employee work and home performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 118 , 103369. Kong, D. T., Ho, V. T., and Garg, S. (2020) Employee and coworker idiosyncratic deals: Implications for emotional exhaustion and deviant behaviors, Journal of Business Ethics , 164, 593-609. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Las Heras, M., Rofcanin, Y., Matthijs Bal, P., & Stollberger, J. (2017). How do flexibility i‐deals relate to work performance? Exploring the roles of family performance and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 38 (8), 1280-1294. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice . Springer Science & Business Media. Liu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., & Wu, L. Z. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology , 98(5), 832-840. Luong, H. V. (2023). The State, Local Sociocultural Landscape, and Global Neoliberal Ideology in Vietnam: A Dialogic Process. The Journal of Asian Studies , 82 (3), 311-338. Marescaux, E., Winne, S. D. and Sels, L. (2019) Idiosyncratic deals from a distributive justice perspective: Examining co-workers' voice behavior, Journal of Business Ethics , 154, 263-281. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224–253. Murphy, W. M., Kram, K. E., & Doh, J. P. (2017). Strategic relationships at work: Creating your circle of mentors, sponsors, and peers for success in business and life. Journal of Management, 43 (3), 856–879. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 76 (3), 419-427. Ochiai, E. (2009). Care diamonds and welfare regimes in East and South‐East Asian societies: Bridging family and welfare sociology. International Journal of Japanese Sociology , 18 (1), 60-78. Rawls, J. (1958), Justice as justice, The Philosophical Review , 67, 2, 164-194. Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves . M.E. Sharpe. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. W.W. Norton & Company. Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural justice effects. Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 (3), 488. Van Waeyenberg, T., Brebels, L., De Winne, S., & Marescaux, E. (2023). What does your i-deal say about me? A social comparison examination of coworker reactions to flexibility i-deals. Group & Organization Management, 48(1), 192-223. Wasti, S. A., Ersoy, N. C., & Erdogan, B. (2022). I-deals in context: a summary and critical review of i-deals literature around the globe. Idiosyncratic deals at work: Exploring individual, organizational, and societal perspectives , 257-307. Wolff, J. (1998). Justice, respect, and the egalitarian ethos. Philosophy & Public Affairs , 27(2), 97–122. Wolff, J., & De-Shalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage . Oxford University Press. Wu, W., Zhang, Y., Ni, D., Li, S., Wu, S., Yu, Z., ... & Zhang, X. (2022). The relationship between idiosyncratic deals and employee workplace deviance: The moderating role of exchange ideology. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 135, 103726. Zwank, A., Schäfer, S., & Wehner, M. C. (2022). The darker sides of calling: A qualitative study of perceptions and consequences among social entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics, 178 (2), 377–395 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 27 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in Asian Journal of Business Ethics → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 07 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 01 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 12 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 09 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 08 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6845841","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":471343912,"identity":"962b336d-26dd-4e22-b5c6-68750dce98dc","order_by":0,"name":"Yasuhiro Hattoi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kobe University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yasuhiro","middleName":"","lastName":"Hattoi","suffix":""},{"id":471343913,"identity":"207abb81-6f7b-4c0d-b80b-07b974d63aaf","order_by":1,"name":"Huong Hoang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Foreign Trade University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huong","middleName":"","lastName":"Hoang","suffix":""},{"id":471343914,"identity":"c37a7d38-3c92-49ec-900b-d4138d01ea35","order_by":2,"name":"Hue Nguyen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Foreign Trade University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hue","middleName":"","lastName":"Nguyen","suffix":""},{"id":471343916,"identity":"0eec7c68-1a37-430e-9d8a-30dd8931c50e","order_by":3,"name":"Kyoko Yamazaki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rikkyo University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kyoko","middleName":"","lastName":"Yamazaki","suffix":""},{"id":471343917,"identity":"e5131d69-4667-4dd6-a8b9-5d6527bd7654","order_by":4,"name":"Trung Bui","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Foreign Trade University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Trung","middleName":"","lastName":"Bui","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-08 06:38:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6845841/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6845841/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-026-00253-3","type":"published","date":"2026-02-27T15:59:13+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":84687652,"identity":"9c4574f3-d43c-4374-bcb6-8f552a3d4f82","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-16 09:11:54","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":438082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eI-deals, individualization, and mitigating mechanisms\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6845841/v1/618718eee6d6fbbe735e30e6.png"},{"id":103765619,"identity":"8c41186a-be5e-462c-a659-032203283a43","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 16:05:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1961195,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6845841/v1/df143001-a930-44b5-9ba8-bb5c9b7b08d4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Mitigating the Individualistic Drift of I-Deals: Lessons from Japanese and Vietnamese Organizations","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn late modernity, workplace relationships have become increasingly shaped by neoliberal ideologies and the individualism they promote, placing employees at the center of organizational life (Bal \u0026amp; D\u0026oacute;ci, 2018). Workers are expected to act autonomously, pursue personal benefit, and take responsibility for their outcomes and wellbeing. Sennett (1998) argues that flexible labor markets weaken long-term commitments, fostering transactional and competitive workplace relationships. This shift is not confined to Western societies; similar trends are evident in East and Southeast Asia (Ochiai, 2009; Luong, 2023). While this individualization promotes self-managed careers, it may also foster entitlement and dissatisfaction\u0026mdash;ultimately threatening workplace cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmid these conditions, idiosyncratic deals (i-deals)\u0026mdash;voluntary, individualized arrangements that benefit both employees and employers (Rousseau, 2005)\u0026mdash;have gained traction. Their growing prevalence reflects the increasing fragmentation of standardized employment practices (Bal \u0026amp; Hornung, 2019). While i-deals offer practical benefits by accommodating individual needs and aligning them with organizational goals, they also raise ethical concerns. As Greenberg et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) argue, i-deals deviate from standard procedures and thus challenge established norms of justice and justice. They may lead to perceptions of favoritism and inequality among coworkers (Ng \u0026amp; Feldman, 2010; Liu et al., 2013; Marescaux et al., 2019). This dual nature creates an ethical paradox: although i-deals aim to motivate and empower, they may simultaneously erode the relational norms on which cooperation depends (Ng, 2017; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In this sense, i-deals are not only a response to individualism but also a catalyst for it\u0026mdash;reshaping workplace culture in potentially divisive ways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing Rousseau\u0026rsquo;s seminal work, researchers initially examined relationships between received i-deals and outcomes (e.g., Hornung et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Research on received i-deals have consistently showed that received i-deals positively impact employees. For example, Rosen and colleagues (2013) found that four i-deal dimensions\u0026mdash;schedule flexibility, job responsibilities, location flexibility, and financial incentives\u0026mdash;enhance affective commitment, while they showed that flexibility and developmental i-deals improve commitment via perceived organizational support and self-esteem. Liao and colleagues (2016) conducted a meta-analysis comparing i-deals' effects across Eastern and Western cultures and found positive impacts of them on perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, emotional commitment, and leader-member exchange, with cultural variations. More recently, Vossaert and colleagues (2023) analyzed team dynamics and revealed that i-deal prevalence influences OCB and cohesion while moderated by i-deal scarcity and team power structure. Among i-deals research, the link between received i-deals and outcomes remains the most studied, with many emphasizing contextual factors (Wasti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough there are relatively few studies on witnessing i-deals (i.e. studies of witnessing i-deals by coworkers and its results), they focus directly on the ethical paradox mentioned above. Witnessing i-deals often triggers upward social comparisons, leading individuals to evaluate themselves against peers. This process is linked to negative attitudes and behaviors such as complaining (Marescaux et al., 2019), deviant behaviors (Kong et al., 2020), and reduced organizational citizenship behaviors (Van Waeyenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Witnessing i-deals can also generate envy, resentment, and cynicism, disrupting workplace harmony (Marescaux et al., 2019). Contextual factors shape coworkers' responses to witnessed i-deals, with procedural justice acting as a moderator that can mitigate or amplify negative reactions (Van Waeyenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, confidence in future opportunities and interdependent work settings can heighten perceived unjustice (Gachayeva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on received i-deals has largely demonstrated that they can benefit the workplace by enhancing the positive attitudes and behaviors of i-dealers. Importantly, these positive effects depend on the presence of relational resources, including team value alignment (Anand et al., 2018), supervisor support (Las Heras et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), high-quality LMX/TMX (Anand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), interdependent work structures, and gratitude expression (Gachayeva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that a degree of relational foundations are essential for i-deals to function effectively. In contrast, research on witnessing i-deals suggests that the i-deals may unintentionally undermine these relational foundations\u0026mdash;through coworkers' dissatisfaction (Marescaux et al., 2019), deviant behavior (Kong et al., 2020), and reduced citizenship behaviors (Van Waeyenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite progress in both research streams, studies of received and witnessed i-deals have evolved largely in isolation, with limited attempts to explore their interdependence or cumulative effects on workplace relationships. A rare exception is Ng (2017), who proposed an integrated model examining how both received and witnessed i-deals contribute to perceptions of a competitive climate. His study demonstrated that this climate, in turn, increases felt ostracism among both i-deals and coworkers\u0026mdash;highlighting the broader social and psychological consequences of i-deals. Ng (2017) offers a valuable contribution by examining how both received and witnessed i-deals can lead employees to perceive a more competitive atmosphere, which in turn increases feelings of exclusion. This work has helped clarify the emotional and cognitive challenges that i-deals can create for both recipients and their coworkers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, what remains largely underexplored is how i-deals affect the workplace as a social system\u0026mdash;that is, how they influence workplace relationship and cooperation. Existing studies, including Ng\u0026rsquo;s, tend to emphasize the risks posed by i-deals, but they do not fully address how these risks are actually dealt with inside organizations. In particular, we know little about whether and how organizations attempt to resist or counteract the spread of individualism that i-deals may promote. In this study, we conceptualize \u003cem\u003eworkplace individualization\u003c/em\u003e as a gradual erosion of collective relational norms\u0026mdash;such as mutual support, shared responsibility, and collaborative orientation\u0026mdash;that traditionally sustain organizational cohesion. This view builds on prior sociological and organizational literature, which describes individualization as a condition where standardized roles and group-based obligations give way to personalized expectations, increased autonomy, and competition (Beck \u0026amp; Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Sennett, 1998). In the context of work, this shift often manifests through the weakening of shared values and the reconfiguration of employee relationships around self-interest and market logic (Bal \u0026amp; D\u0026oacute;ci, 2018; Bal \u0026amp; Hornung, 2019). While previous research has primarily discussed individualization as a macro-level cultural trend, our study investigates how i-deals\u0026mdash;through mechanisms such as psychological entitlement (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and malicious envy (Van de Ven et al., 2012)\u0026mdash;can produce micro-level relational disruptions that, over time, accumulate into workplace individualization. By anchoring this concept in concrete relational dynamics, we aim to contribute a more actionable understanding of how individualism unfolds within organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study seeks to fill that gap. By examining how i-deals operate in practice within organizations, we aim to understand not only how they challenge workplace cohesion, but also how people inside organizations respond to those challenges. In doing so, we offer a more comprehensive view of the relational consequences of i-deals\u0026mdash;not only as sources of tension, but also as opportunities for rebuilding and adaptation. To address these gaps, this study poses two research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do received and witnessed i-deals shape employee reactions and influence workplace cooperation?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do organizations mitigate or amplify these effects of i-deals?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy addressing these questions, this research aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of i-deals, their ethical implications, and their role in shaping workplace environments. It seeks to offer both theoretical insights and practical strategies for fostering cohesion and justice in increasingly individualized organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on the prior research outlined above, this study attempts to makes two key contributions. First, this research bridges the gap between the received i-deals and witnessing others\u0026rsquo; i-deals literature, which have traditionally been treated as independent streams. By examining how these pathways interact, the study provides a more comprehensive understanding of i-deals\u0026rsquo; impact on workplace dynamics, particularly their role in fostering individualistic behaviors and attitudes. This integrative perspective addresses a critical gap in the existing literature and highlights the need for a more holistic approach to studying i-deals. Second, this study advances theoretical understanding by identifying the mechanisms through which i-deals contribute to workplace individualism. Psychological entitlement among i-dealers and malicious envy among coworkers have been shown to be key drivers of this process. By focusing on these mechanisms, this research elucidates the unintended consequences of i-deals and provides a foundation for developing strategies to mitigate their negative effects.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHOD","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo investigate our research questions, we adopted a qualitative, person-centered, and inductive design. This approach enabled us to access how individuals interpret and respond to i-deals within their social and organizational contexts. Specifically, we followed the principles of grounded theory (Glaser \u0026amp; Strauss, 1967), using iterative cycles of data collection and analysis to build theory from empirical observations. Our strategy was informed by the \"twist cone\" approach suggested by Murphy and colleagues (2017), which promotes an evolving dialogue between emergent data and existing theory. This framework allowed us to incorporate theoretical concepts as they became relevant during analysis while remaining grounded in participants\u0026rsquo; lived experiences, consistent with the dual-track logic of exploratory research (Zwank et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch Context\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in four companies operating in Japan and Vietnam. While existing research on i-deals has predominantly focused on Western organizational contexts, our study explores i-deals in two non-Western, collectivist societies in Asia. Both Japan and Vietnam are characterized by cultural norms that emphasize group harmony, social cohesion, and interdependence (Hofstede, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). These cultural values make Asian organizational contexts especially relevant for investigating the dynamics and consequences of individualized employment arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor companies in both Japan and Vietnam, a pressing challenge lies in balancing global competitiveness with local cultural values. On one hand, firms are increasingly expected to attract and retain top talent by offering individualized, market-driven incentives such as i-deals\u0026mdash;a trend rooted in neoliberal labor practices (Rousseau, 2005; Bal \u0026amp; D\u0026oacute;ci, 2018). On the other hand, these organizations must also sustain the collectivist norms that underpin trust, cohesion, and long-term commitment within the workplace. This tension makes these companies particularly suitable sites for examining how i-deals shape, and are shaped by, the interplay between individualization and relational embeddedness in collectivist cultures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research is particularly concerned with the tension between collectivist cultural foundations and the individualized nature of i-deals. As outlined in the introduction, i-deals are closely associated with neoliberal values and increasing workplace individualism. By focusing on organizations in Japan and Vietnam\u0026mdash;contexts that are generally more collectivist (Markus \u0026amp; Kitayama, 1991). \u0026mdash;our research design explores how such individualistic practices unfold in environments culturally oriented toward the group. Although our study includes companies from both countries, our goal is not to provide a direct cross-national comparison. Rather, we aim to generate insights into how i-deals are experienced and interpreted in organizational settings where collective values remain salient, and to examine how organizational members respond to the challenges posed by increasing individualization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy selecting companies from two distinct Asian economies\u0026mdash;each with its own institutional history and management practices\u0026mdash;we provide a culturally informed basis for exploring how i-deals function in workplaces shaped by collective orientations. This approach allows us to highlight both shared cultural logics and the variety of organizational responses to individualization without reducing the analysis to national contrast.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants and Data Collection\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo understand how i-deals affect not only their recipients but also the broader social context in which they are embedded, we adopted a multi-stakeholder perspective (Liao et al., 2016; Ng \u0026amp; Feldman, 2010). Specifically, we interviewed four types of organizational actors: (1) i-deal recipients, (2) supervisors who granted the i-deals, (3) human resource staff, and (4) coworkers who observed the granting of i-deals. This design allowed us to capture the interplay between individualized arrangements and collective dynamics from multiple vantage points. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides an overview of the main characteristics of the organizations and participants in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation about sample organizations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSize\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(employees)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany age (years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndustry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHead office location\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview location\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTokyo (Japan)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanoi (Vietnam)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTokyo (Japan)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTokyo\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Japan)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruction and civil engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanoi (Vietnam)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanoi (Vietnam)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany D\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutomation Solutions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanoi (Vietnam)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHanoi (Vietnam)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e※ The number of employees and age is an approximate figure to ensure the anonymity of the companies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn total, 14 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted across four companies (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The selection of these companies was purposive rather than random. All four had introduced i-deals in recent years, and we selected them based on preliminary findings that indicated differing organizational responses to such arrangements. In three cases (Companies A, C, and D), the granting of i-deals had introduced subtle tensions into workplace relationships\u0026mdash;such as concerns about justice or feelings of ambivalence among coworkers\u0026mdash;but had not escalated to visible conflict or employee turnover. In contrast, Company B represented a rare case where the introduction of multiple i-deals\u0026mdash;mainly financial incentives offered to high-performing engineers recruited from other firms\u0026mdash;triggered clear resistance among existing staff, including cynical attitudes and eventual employee resignations. By including this more extreme case alongside more moderate ones, we were able to compare how i-deals function under varying degrees of relational strain. This sampling strategy allowed us to explore both the common patterns and the diverse consequences of i-deals in organizational contexts, enabling richer theoretical insight.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt Companies A, B, and C, we identified high-performing employees (i-dealers) through recommendations from the human resources department. We then interviewed their direct supervisors and relevant colleagues who were not i-dealers themselves. Company A had five interviewees (two i-dealers, two supervisors, and one HR manager); Company B had three (one i-dealer, one supervisor, and one coworker); and Company C had four (one i-dealer, two HR staff, and one HR manager). Company D was an exception, where only the HR manager and Group CEO were interviewed due to limited access to other personnel.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll interviews were conducted either face-to-face or online. Those at Company B were in Japanese, while those at Companies A, C, and D were conducted in a mix of Japanese and Vietnamese, with bilingual support from the research team. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Verbatim transcripts and detailed interview notes were used as the primary data sources, with accuracy confirmed by participants when necessary (Corden \u0026amp; Sainsbury, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure confidentiality, all identifying information was anonymized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe explained to respondents that 'i-deals' refer to customized working conditions negotiated between employees and supervisors, consistent with prior literature (e.g., Gachayeva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Interview guides were informed by our research questions and the existing literature on i-deals, while allowing for emerging insights. All participants were assured that the study was academic and that their responses would remain confidential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eList of participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants code\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganization code\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNationality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA-1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR Manager\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVienamise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA-3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA-4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-dealer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVienamise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA-5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-dealer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVienamise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB-1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR Manager\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-dealer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB-3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoworker\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJapanese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC-1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR Manager\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR staff\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC-3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR staff\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC-4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI-dealer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD-1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR Manager\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup CEO\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnamese\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe employed a qualitative analysis strategy that integrates the grounded theorizing tradition (Glaser \u0026amp; Strauss, 1967) with the structured flexibility of the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This approach aligns with Murphy and cooleagues' (2017) twist cone framework and Zwank and colleagues\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) application of a tabula gemini logic\u0026mdash;an analytic stance that enables researchers to combine inductive coding with theoretical sensitivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we applied the tabula rasa logic of the Gioia method to inductively derive first-order codes based on informants\u0026rsquo; own words and perspectives. In parallel, and in order to meaningfully connect our findings to established theory, we engaged in theory-informed coding using sensitizing concepts from prior literature. Specifically, we drew on research concerning social comparison and procedural justice to refine and label emerging second-order themes. This dual-track strategy enabled us to surface novel insights grounded in data while also building theoretical bridges to existing constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis proceeded through constant comparison, both within and across cases, adhering to the grounded theory principle of \u0026ldquo;theoretical sampling through continual contrast\u0026rdquo; (Glaser \u0026amp; Strauss, 1967). Coding was carried out independently by multiple researchers, followed by iterative group discussions to ensure consistency and depth of interpretation. Discrepancies were resolved through team deliberation and further engagement with raw data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on the above methodological approach, our analysis clarified both the intended and unintended consequences of i-deals. In particular, it enabled us to examine how individualized work arrangements contribute to workplace individualization in Asian companies with collectivist cultures, and how organizational members attempt to address or resist these tendencies. Through this dual lens, we were able to illuminate the dynamic interplay between the diffusion of individualism and the strategies for maintaining relational and collective cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur analysis revealed that the individualization of the workplace triggered by i-deals operates primarily through two psychological mechanisms: psychological entitlement among recipients and malicious envy among coworkers. These dynamics gradually erode cooperative norms and workplace cohesion. To mitigate these effects, organizations employ three complementary mechanisms: (1) reshaping institutional conditions (e.g., transparent evaluations, accessibility, and commoditization), which provide cognitive legitimacy for i-deals; (2) preventing social comparison, which regulates the emotional impact of status differentials; and (3) taking an ethical/relational lens, which functions as a metacognitive lens that reshapes how i-deals are interpreted. Importantly, we found that the first two mechanisms, though necessary, were not sufficient. Only in cases where the ethical/relational lens was present did organizations successfully buffer the divisive effects of i-deals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe individualization of the workplace\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn all four companies, interviewees mentioned that offering i-deals could lead to upward comparisons among colleagues who observed them, and could eventually cause feelings of malicious envy.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e(By observing others receiving idiosyncratic deals) there are times when someone's feelings get a little frayed, or when a certain few people are momentarily tormented by noise. There are times when you hear people say, \u0026ldquo;That person has moved on.\u0026rdquo; This is especially true for members of the same team or department. (omission) You feel, \u0026ldquo;So, what about me?\u0026rdquo; (A-3)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIn those situations, I don't know if the word \u0026ldquo;envy\u0026rdquo; is the right one, but I feel like \u0026ldquo;Why not me, but that person? I think that's only natural. (C-1)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, in all four companies, employees also reported that being offered i-deals would lead to the i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s making downward comparisons with their colleagues, and this would lead to a sense of entitlement. However, such a sense of entitlement, at least in Asia, does not seem to manifest itself in direct actions, but rather in more subtle ways.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI think there are cases like that (i.e. cases where individuals who receive i-deals start to think of themselves as special) even in Vietnamese companies. If they receive idiosyncratic deals, why do they think they are excellent and special? I think that could happen to anyone, in any company, and we can't blame them for it. (C-1)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI think that Japanese people, or perhaps it would be better to say Asian people, don't take an arrogant attitude or look down on other people just because they have received such treatment (i.e. idiosyncratic deals). However, it is possible that a sense of entitlement may grow in the depths of their hearts, and this may manifest itself in their behavior, albeit in a subtle way. In fact, I have seen such cases in my company. (A-3)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe i-dealer, who is the direct beneficiary of i-deals, and the coworkers, who do not directly benefit from i-deals (although they are not victims), are in completely different positions. Nevertheless, the sense of entitlement felt by the i-dealer and the malicious envy felt by the coworkers lead them both to behave in a similar way in the workplace, in terms of uncooperative behavior. For example, company B, in order to respond to business expansion, hired engineers who were among the best in the industry from other companies and implemented several i-deals centered on financial incentives. As a result, existing members became cynical and some employees left the company.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe problem is that it (envy) can lead to a cynical mentality and reduce cooperative behavior in the workplace. If someone is in trouble at work, we naturally want to help them. But what if there is someone who is better off than you? It's not surprising that you might think to yourself, \u0026ldquo;There's no need for me to go out of my way to help that person\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;There's no need to help someone who is in a better position than me.\u0026rdquo; (B-3)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat we need to be careful about is how people with this kind of mentality will act afterwards. Some people who receive idiosyncratic deals think, \u0026ldquo;So I'll work even harder\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;I'll contribute more to the company\u0026rdquo;, but there are also people who think, \u0026ldquo;There's no need to work any harder than this\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;I'm already contributing just by being here\u0026rdquo;. Some of these people end up becoming more interested in increasing their own profits. (B-1)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOrganizational strategies to handle negative effects of i-deals\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough multiple interviews with four companies, three themes emerged that are related to factors that mitigate he negative effects of i-deals: reshaping institutional conditions, canceling social comparison, and taking an ethical/relational lens. Of the four companies, all three themes were observed in companies A, C, and D, but in company B, the existence of the ethical/relational lens could not be confirmed. This finding suggests that while institutional conditions and cancelling social comparison are necessary conditions for mitigating the negative effects of i-deals, they are not sufficient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eReshaping institutional conditions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour important themes emerged regarding institutional conditions are: multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, accessibility, and commoditization of i-deals (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Of these, multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, and accessibility are themes related to the so called \u0026ldquo;procedural justice\u0026rdquo; (Gachayeva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMultifaceted Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that when i-deals are granted based on evaluations that incorporate multiple perspectives rather than the discretionary judgment of a single evaluator, both the risk of entitlement among i-dealers and the likelihood of malicious envy among colleagues are significantly reduced. Specifically, the following three subcategories play a crucial role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eMultiple Evaluators\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe involvement of multiple, independent evaluators in the decision-making process ensures that the granting of an i-deal is based on objective and impartial evaluation, rather than personal preference. This plurality and independence ensures that i-dealers are aware that the i-deal was awarded based on a fair evaluation, rather than preferential selection, and so are less likely to develop a sense of entitlement. Similarly, their colleagues are also less likely to perceive the decision as arbitrary, and more likely to see it as fair, reducing feelings of malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDiversity of Reference Information\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy incorporating multiple reference points and performance indicators rather than relying on a singular evaluation metric, the legitimacy of the decision is strengthened. I-dealers are more likely to see the granted i-deal as a reward for their multifaceted contributions, rather than as an arbitrary benefit, reducing their sense of entitlement. Likewise, colleagues who observe that different dimensions of performance are considered in the evaluation process are more likely to perceive the outcome as fair rather than as favoritism, thus lowering the risk of malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTransparency of Evaluation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnsuring transparency in the evaluation process for granting i-deals also plays a significant role in mitigating entitlement and envy. Transparency consists of two key aspects:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTransparency of Evaluation Procedures\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen the procedural steps through which i-deals are granted are well-defined and clearly communicated, i-dealers are less likely to perceive themselves as receiving special treatment. Instead, they understand that their i-deal resulted from a structured and standardized decision-making process. Likewise, colleagues are more likely to view the process as legitimate and procedural rather than discretionary or arbitrary, making them less prone to malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTransparency of Evaluation Criteria\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen the criteria for granting i-deals are explicitly defined and made accessible to employees, i-dealers are more likely to perceive their i-deal as an earned reward based on clear standards, rather than as an entitlement. At the same time, colleagues recognize that i-deals are not exclusive privileges but attainable opportunities for those who meet specific conditions, reducing feelings of unjustice and resentment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAccessibility\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClarifying accessibility of i-deals\u0026mdash;how employees can qualify for such arrangements\u0026mdash;further mitigates entitlement and envy. This factor consists of two subcategories:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eClarification of Access Conditions\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen employees clearly understand what conditions must be met in order to be eligible for i-deals, i-dealers perceive their granted i-deal as a result of merit-based selection rather than arbitrary favoritism, reducing their sense of entitlement. Additionally, colleagues, recognizing that they too have the opportunity to qualify for i-deals, are less likely to feel that certain individuals are unfairly privileged, thereby reducing malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDenial of Permanence\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf it is explicitly communicated that i-deals are not permanent and can be revoked or reassigned based on changing circumstances, i-dealers are less likely to perceive their i-deal as an indefinite privilege, mitigating the risk of entitlement. Similarly, colleagues who understand that i-deals are not fixed benefits but fluid arrangements subject to reassessment are less likely to perceive them as inherently unfair, reducing negative emotional reactions such as envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll of the above factors provide both parties with the perception that the i-deals being offered are reasonable. This sense of rationality makes the i-dealer aware that the i-deals they have been given have been provided through legitimate procedures and are therefore not permanent. Simultaneously, it also raises the awareness among their colleagues that the i-deals have been provided through authorized procedures, and that they too have the potential to receive them if they meet the same conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommoditization of i-deals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings from the interviews alsoindicate that increasing the frequency of i-deals and similar arrangements in the workplace (Commoditization of i-deals) also serves as a mechanism for mitigating (1) the i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s sense of entitlement and (2) malicious envy among colleagues who witness i-deals. Unlike the previously discussed factors\u0026mdash;Multifaceted Evaluation, Transparency of Evaluation, and Clarification of Accessibility\u0026mdash;which function by enhancing the perceived justice of the evaluation process, commoditization of i-deals reduces entitlement and envy by positioning i-deals as an ordinary workplace practice rather than an exceptional privilege.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommoditization of i-deals consists of the following three subcategories:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHeavy Use of Individuality\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eProviding personalized support to employees in ways beyond simply granting i-deals\u0026mdash;such as conducting frequent one-on-one meetings to discuss career aspirations and offering individualized development opportunities\u0026mdash;plays a significant role in reducing entitlement and envy. When employees perceive that the organization routinely engages in individual career discussions and support, i-dealers are less likely to feel that they alone are receiving special treatment, thereby reducing their sense of entitlement. When employees recognize that individualized attention is not exclusive to i-dealers, but rather a general practice applied to everyone, they are less likely to feel resentment toward those who receive i-deals, thus mitigating malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIncrease in Frequency\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding both the frequency and the scope of i-deals granted within an organization contributes to normalizing i-deals as a common workplace arrangement rather than a rare privilege. When i-deals are granted more frequently and to a larger number of employees, i-dealers perceive that they are not uniquely privileged but rather just a part of a broader, merit-based practice, which reduces their sense of entitlement. As i-deals become more widespread and accessible, colleagues are less likely to view them as an exclusive benefit reserved for a select few, thereby reducing their feelings of envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal that Commoditization of i-deals mitigates i-dealers\u0026rsquo; entitlement and colleagues\u0026rsquo; envy not by reinforcing procedural justice, but by reducing the perception among them that i-deals are special privileges. While Multifaceted Evaluation, Transparency of Evaluation, and Clarification of Accessibility function through the ensuring of fair distribution and clear criteria, Commoditization of i-deals operates through diluting the exclusivity of i-deals and embedding them into routine organizational practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategories and representative data:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAggerate dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond-order themes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst-order themes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuotes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReshaping institutional conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultifaceted evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple evaluators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple people are involved in performance evaluations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a human resources manager for each business. They are responsible for ensuring that the right people are in the right places within the business, and for selecting the right people for the job. At the same time, the human resources managers at our head office are responsible for human resources across the business. This means that we evaluate human resources from different perspectives. (B-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen evaluating employees, we base our decisions on two factors. The first is the individual's abilities. More specifically, this refers to the degree of compatibility with the C culture and the high level of management ability as a leader. The second factor is work execution ability, in other words, whether or not the person has specialist knowledge and ability. This is measured through a 360-degree evaluation. (omission) The important thing is that the evaluation is not carried out by just one superior, but by several superiors, colleagues and subordinates. A number of people are picked out and they each carry out an evaluation. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasically, the human resources department makes the decisions. However, when hiring star-class employees, the decision has to be made by someone higher up. This is very clear. It is clearly decided. There is a hiring committee for hiring star employees. In such cases, the HR department not only hires the person, but also forms an evaluation committee, reports the hiring process to that committee, and asks them to score the final score. If the HR department thinks that this person is likely to become a star, we will inform the committee. After informing the committee and having them look at various things, if the final decision is to hire this person, the HR department will create the conditions to offer to that person on their behalf, and the committee will make the final decision. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also conduct 360-degree evaluations of employees, not just by their superiors. Subordinates evaluate each other. (D-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiversity of reference information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConducting evaluations based on a wide range of information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the information on the effects of personnel changes that is provided once every six months, we also take into account the results of the internal survey that we conduct every month. This is a quantitative measure of the conditions related to an individual's work. In addition, qualitative information is also important. This is the real key. The members of the human resources department try to go out to the workplace and interview employees whenever they have the time. The information obtained in this way is also shared among the human resources members. In some cases, we also consult with the executives. In any case, we evaluate talented people based on a variety of information (B-1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparency of evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparency of evaluation procedures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evaluation process is open to employees\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are clear rules regarding recruitment. We try to stay within the framework of these rules as much as possible when negotiating with job applicants. At C, all the rules regarding personnel recruitment and the framework for recruitment are made public. So all employees know what criteria are used, what procedures are followed, what benefits are given for which jobs, and so on. They also know what salary level they will be paid when they join the company. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparency of evaluation criteria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evaluation criteria are open to employees\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are three criteria for the personnel evaluation: culture, leadership ability, and professional ability. Each of these has a set percentage. Basically, you get a score for each of the three abilities, based on the set percentages. If the overall score is high, that means the person is contributing to the company. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to clearly share the idea that \u0026ldquo;the company needs people like this\u0026rdquo;. It is not just that the boss or the HR department thinks this, but it is important that the members share this idea on a daily basis. If, for example, it is understood that strengthening DX is an urgent issue, then it will be logically correct to treat employees who excel in DX well. (A-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasically, we don't give people high salaries that exceed this level (the clearly defined salary range). Even if you are contributing to a project team rather than a line job, when the project is over, it will be possible to visualize how much profit you have increased for the company, and to a certain extent, you will be able to see how much you will be paid. (D-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccecibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClarification of access conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conditions for receiving i-deals must be clearly stated and made public.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot only do they properly evaluate those who have made efforts that match the needs of the company and achieved results, but they also provide them with tangible opportunities for the future. For example, they might assign them to a position that involves work outside of Vietnam. By making their achievements and rewards visible in this way, it becomes a model case that can be shared with other members. I think it makes it clear what you can do and what you can achieve. (A-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor example, in the case of A-4, before offering her an idiosyncratic deal, she was made to take a test (on a subject that was important to the company) and she passed it. The fact that she passed a difficult and important test would not only be known within Vietnam, but also reach the ears of the HR department in Singapore. This would allow the members to clearly understand that \u0026ldquo;she is excellent\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;she is making an effort to meet the company's reporting requirements\u0026rdquo;. This would mean that there would be no room for argument. (A-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDenial the permanence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDenying the permanence of i-deals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pool of people who receive special education is fluid. This year, someone is on the list, but next year, that person may be off the list. Adjustments are made every year, so there is no such thing as the person becoming arrogant because of it. (A-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommoditization of i-deals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeavy use of idiosyncrasy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe perception that the i-deals are not permanent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt our company, we carefully create a career path for each individual. Once a year, the employee and their supervisor have a one-on-one interview to discuss the employee's career aspirations. After hearing the employee's wishes, the human resources department compiles the employee's wishes and creates a career path just for that person. (omission) During the one-on-one discussion with the supervisor, I ask them to give me their opinions on how to improve their work environment or work efficiency. (A-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncrease in frequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ei-deals are offered frequently\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn fact, both mid-level and senior staff as well as young staff are frequently selected. In other words, there are many cases of selection within the organization. It is not only young staff who are selected. Everyone has the chance. (B-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreventing social comparison\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCancellation of upward comparison ※\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGet them to look outside\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo get people outside the workplace or organization to set a point of comparison or a standard for evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI tell them to look at the market and look up. It's important to make sure they don't compare themselves with their colleagues. You need to make them realize that you're not competing with your colleagues sitting next to you, but with your rivals in the market, and that the people you need to show your excellence to are not your colleagues, but your customers. It's important to empathize with their concerns about how they're evaluated by their colleagues, but to make them realize that this is actually a small thing, and to make them look at themselves from a bird's eye view. (B-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLowering the interaction with the i-dealer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoid direct comparisons by reducing the interdependence of members' work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt my workplace, each member has their own specific area of work. For example, Mr. A is in charge of business X, and Mr. B is in charge of business Y. So there are no conflicts. Of course, when it comes to promotions, it becomes a zero-sum competition, but even in that case, it doesn't mean that Mr. A has won over Mr. B in all aspects. It's a kind of competition, but since it's not a direct competition, there are almost no conflicts. (A-4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCancellation of downward comparison ※\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGet them to look upward\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForming humility through making i-dealer look up\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe deliberately show (to younger members) that employees who have been with the company for over 20 years and are at the executive level are still continuing to produce results, are still continuing to learn humbly, and are still working hard and honestly. I think that is the secret to maintaining the purity of a culture of \u0026ldquo;continuing to work hard with humility\u0026rdquo;. (B-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe deliberately encourage members to set high goals. Let's say they achieve \u0026ldquo;result X\u0026rdquo;. But when you look to the side, there may be someone who has achieved \u0026ldquo;X\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1\u0026rdquo;. We bring the members' perspective to such superior people, in direct dialogue. Then, for example, we have them meet directly with superior people in higher positions, or have them make direct contact. We say things like, \u0026ldquo;Give him some advice\u0026rdquo;. (A-3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinguistic persuasion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eforming humirity through linguistic Persuasion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI think there are cases like that (cases where members lose their humility by receiving idiosyncratic deals) even in Vietnamese companies. However, we are able to discover them at an early stage. There is a dialogue between the boss and the subordinate once every three months, and we are able to discover things to a certain extent at that time. If the person is bragging about themselves or becoming arrogant, the boss or the surrounding members will correct their way of thinking through conversation. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking an ethical/relational lens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einstilling ethical/relational value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ethe value that prioritizes organization over the individual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo instill a value system that prioritizes the organization over the individual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eI think that the key is something a little different, because an individual is not a tool or a machine for a company. In the case of C, that is culture. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll employees who join C have to abide by these core values. No matter how jealous you may feel, you are still a member of C, so you have to act in accordance with the ideas and actions that C requires. You have to respect the company's rules and policies. C expects you to think about the company first and suppress your own needs. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBecoming morally good\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo instill the value that we should be good ethically\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe created a pocketbook as a way of promoting our corporate culture. One of the core values in the pocketbook is \u0026ldquo;become a better person\u0026rdquo;. All employees understand and follow this. If someone becomes arrogant and stops cooperating with others, or if they become so proud of their own excellence that they no longer fit the C value, we ask them to leave. (C-1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are five values that we cherish. One of these is \u0026ldquo;to become more than you were yesterday through learning\u0026rdquo;. This means aiming to become a better version of yourself than you were yesterday, rather than trying to beat or overtake someone else. If this culture is firmly established, I think that employees will be able to remain humble to a certain extent, and that human relationships will improve. (D-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication emphasizing ethics/relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvoiding the use of competitive metaphors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo avoid using language and metaphors related to competition and winning at work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt's important not to use words like \u0026ldquo;competition\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;contest\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;promotion\u0026rdquo; too much in your everyday life. If you talk about these things all the time, your colleagues will inevitably see you as \u0026ldquo;the other side of the competition\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;the enemy in the contest\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;the person who was promoted first\u0026rdquo;. I think that having fewer conversations like this leads to good relationships. (A-4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eformation of collectivity through communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmphasizing that one cannot do a job alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasically, important conversations between members of the workplace and their superiors are one-on-one. Try to speak one-on-one during working hours. (omission)... As a basic premise, I emphasize that our work is not something that can be completed by one person, but is something that is done by a team. (omission)... Even if that person is a standout ace, it is necessary for them to know from the start that everyone's help is needed in order to achieve results. (A-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe make a point of having people work together with a variety of people, rather than leaving everything to one person. This prevents employees from becoming competitive with each other, and also stops them thinking that they are the only ones contributing or that they are special. (D-2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e* Indicates tabula gemini concepts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the importance of not only establishing procedural justice but also normalizing i-deals as a common practice within the organization. By doing so, organizations can reduce the likelihood of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement and prevent colleagues from perceiving i-deals as an unfair privilege, thereby fostering a more harmonious workplace environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePreventing social comparison\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCancellation of upward comparison\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA primary driver of malicious envy among colleagues who witness i-deals is upward comparison, where they compare themselves unfavorably to the i-dealer and perceive the i-deal as an unfair advantage. Upward comparison intensifies perceptions of injustice and resentment, potentially leading to workplace tensions. This study identifies two key mechanisms that mitigate upward comparison: \u003cem\u003eGet them to look outside\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLower the interaction with the i-dealer\u003c/em\u003e. These mechanisms function by broadening the pool of social comparison targets or increasing social distance from the comparison target, thereby reducing the intensity of envy-driven social comparison.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eGet them to look outside\u003c/em\u003e shifts the reference point for social comparison from the i-dealer to external benchmarks, such as industry standards, competitors, or professionals in different career paths. By encouraging employees to compare their career trajectories and opportunities with external references rather than internal colleagues, organizations can dilute the perceived impact of an individual i-deal. Employees who see that various organizations implement flexible work arrangements or performance-based incentives are less likely to view i-deals as unique advantages granted to specific individuals. To facilitate this, interviewed organizations have successfully promote external networking opportunities, share industry best practices, and provide comparative insights on workforce trends. By expanding the frame of reference beyond immediate workplace comparisons, their employees were less likely to fixate on the advantages received by their colleagues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLowering the interaction with the i-dealers\u003c/em\u003e reduces direct social interactions between colleagues and the i-dealers to decrease the frequency and intensity of social comparison. Research on social comparison suggests that frequent exposure to a comparison target heightens envy, making it important to manage the proximity of employees to high-visibility i-dealers (Marescaux et al., 2019). This does not imply isolating i-dealers but rather strategically diversifying employees' comparison points by increasing exposure to different colleagues and work environments. Interviewed managers revealed that their organizations implement this through various methods such as promoting cross-team collaborations, rotating project assignments, or restructuring team dynamics to prevent employees from repeatedly comparing themselves to the same individuals. By creating a more fluid social environment, these organizations were able to diffuse the focus on i-dealers and prevent upward comparison from escalating into malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth mechanisms work by redirecting employees\u0026rsquo; focus away from direct comparisons with i-dealers, either by shifting their reference points externally or by reducing social proximity to the i-dealers. These strategies ultimately help prevent the escalation of envy and maintain a more cohesive workplace environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCancellation of downward comparison\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the primary causes of an i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s sense of entitlement is downward comparison, where the i-dealers perceive themselves as superior to their colleagues because they have received an i-deal. This type of comparison can lead the i-dealers to believe that their success is entirely self-earned and that they inherently deserve special treatment. However, this study identifies two key mechanisms that mitigate downward comparison: \u003cem\u003eGet them to look upward\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLinguistic persuasion\u003c/em\u003e. Both mechanisms play a crucial role in cultivating humility, which in turn reduce the likelihood of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eGet them to look upward\u003c/em\u003e encourages i-dealers to shift their focus toward individuals who have achieved even greater success. By directing their attention to higher-performing peers, industry leaders, or organizational role models, i-dealers are reminded that there are still higher levels of achievement to strive for. This realization helps them recognize that their i-deals are not an inherent right but rather an opportunity for further growth. Strategies to implement this include introducing high-achieving role models, setting aspirational performance benchmarks, and encouraging comparisons with top performers across the industry. By continuously being driven to look upward, i-dealers develop a greater sense of humility and become less likely to perceive themselves as uniquely deserving of special treatment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLinguistic persuasion\u003c/em\u003e refers to the use of managerial dialogue to shape the i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s perception of their i-deal. Through carefully framed conversations, managers reinforced the notion that i-deals were not personal privileges but rather contextual adjustments made in response to organizational needs and expectations. Additionally, interviewed managers emphasized the collective contributions of teams and organizational support structures that enable individual success. By hearing from management that their i-deals were just a part of a broader strategy rather than an exception granted to them alone, i-dealers were less likely to develop an inflated sense of entitlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth mechanisms contribute to cultivating humility, which mitigates downward comparison and reduces the likelihood of an i-dealer perceiving himself as inherently more deserving than their colleagues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe dual nature of procedural justice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study confirms that procedural justice plays a crucial role in cultivating humility in i-dealers and mitigate malicious envy among coworkers. When i-deals are granted through a transparent and fair evaluation process, i-dealers perceive their advantages as a legitimate outcome of an equitable decision-making system rather than as an arbitrary privilege. This recognition reinforces that their success is not solely due to their own efforts, but is formally acknowledged within the organizational framework, giving them a sense of self-justification and accountability. Similarly, coworkers who witness i-deals granted through a procedurally fair system may experience reduced distrust and resentment, recognizing that these special arrangements are based on clearly defined criteria rather than favoritism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, this study also reveals that procedural justice can paradoxically amplify both an i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s sense of entitlement and coworkers\u0026rsquo; malicious envy. Procedural justice reinforces the perception\u0026mdash;among both i-dealers and their coworkers\u0026mdash;that i-deals are not arbitrary privileges but rationally justified and institutionally sanctioned special treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s perspective, procedural justice strengthens the belief that their i-deal was granted as a legitimate reward for their merit rather than as an exception. Consequently, i-dealers are more likely to see their i-deal not as a temporary benefit but rather as an entitlement reflecting their intrinsic value to the organization. The more they internalize the idea that they were selected through a fair and structured process, the more they may come to believe they deserve continuous special treatment. Rather than fostering gratitude or humility, procedural justice can sometimes reinforce an inflated sense of entitlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the coworkers\u0026rsquo; perspective, procedural justice can also intensify malicious envy rather than alleviate it. When an i-deal appears to be unfair, coworkers may rationalize the disparity by attributing it to arbitrary decision-making or managerial bias, allowing them to dismiss the outcome as an unjustified anomaly. However, when procedural justice is evident, this psychological escape route disappears. That is, coworkers are forced to acknowledge that the i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s advantage was conferred through a legitimate and merit-based process, which may lead to a painful realization that they were not deemed worthy of similar treatment. This, in turn, reinforces upward comparison, leading to greater dissatisfaction and resentment. The more an organization emphasizes procedural justice, the more coworkers may be confronted with the reality that they were objectively deemed less deserving than the i-dealer, intensifying their feelings of envy and perceived inferiority.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt is of course important to have clear evaluation criteria, to have a well-organized process, and to evaluate impartially and selflessly. If you don't do this, no one will be satisfied. However, an evaluation that leaves no room for argument is cruel in a sense. It's fine for those who are highly evaluated, but for those who are not evaluated, there is no way to make excuses. Such an evaluation does not allow members to make excuses such as \u0026ldquo;it's because the boss isn't looking properly\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;it just happened like that\u0026rdquo;. (B-3)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWe are proud of the fact that we have a proper personnel evaluation system in place at our company. That being said, our evaluations are also strict. From the employees' point of view, it is difficult to disregard the evaluation that has been handed down or to deny the differences between oneself and someone else (C-1).\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that procedural justice alone is insufficient to mitigate an i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s sense of entitlement or to prevent malicious envy among coworkers. The dual nature of procedural justice\u0026mdash;its ability to both reduce and exacerbate these psychological reactions\u0026mdash;highlights the need for additional mechanisms to regulate the social consequences of i-deals. As previously discussed, preventing downward comparison plays a crucial role in addressing an i-dealer\u0026rsquo;s entitlement. Encouraging i-dealers to shift their focus toward higher-performing individuals (Get them to look upward) and fostering humility through managerial discourse (Linguistic persuasion) can counteract the entitlement effects reinforced by procedural justice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, \u003cem\u003ecancellation of upward comparison\u003c/em\u003e is essential for mitigating malicious envy among coworkers. Shifting coworkers\u0026rsquo; comparative focus away from the i-dealer and toward external benchmarks (Get them to look outside) or reducing direct interactions with the i-dealer (Lower the interaction with the i-dealer) can weaken social comparison intensity, preventing procedural justice from fueling resentment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, when organizations aim to enhance procedural justice in the distribution of i-deals, it is crucial to complement it with additional interventions that shape perceptions and regulate social comparisons. \u003cem\u003eProcedural justice\u003c/em\u003e alone may not be enough; organizations must also cultivate humility among i-dealers and restructure comparative frameworks to prevent entitlement and envy. By integrating these complementary mechanisms, organizations can preserve both justice and social harmony in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTaking an ethical/ relational lens\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the process by which i-deals may promote workplace individualization, organizational members engage in mitigating efforts that operate on multiple levels. First, Reshaping \u003cem\u003einstitutional conditions\u003c/em\u003e provide a logical interpretive framework through which specific i-deals are recognized as legitimate. Narratives emphasizing transparent access, justice, and multifaceted evaluation help establish the organizational legitimacy of these arrangements, thereby fostering acceptance among both recipients and coworkers. Second, \u003cem\u003ePreventing social comparison\u003c/em\u003e works to suppress negative emotional reactions\u0026mdash;such as malicious envy or entitlement\u0026mdash;by cognitively decoupling self-evaluations from those of others. This is often achieved by framing others' i-deals as based on different efforts, roles, or circumstances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstilling ethical/relational value\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, while these two mechanisms help prevent or buffer individualistic responses, they are not sufficient on their own. They do little to shift the broader interpretive frame through which i-deals are perceived. This is where the third factor\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eTaking an ethical or relational lens\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;plays a critical moderating role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe value that prioritizes organization over the individual\u003c/em\u003e encourages employees to think beyond their personal interests or career ambitions, instead aligning their decisions with the collective interests of the company. As a result, i-deals are not perceived as personal privileges but as rational adjustments made for the effective functioning of the organization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the emphasis on \u003cem\u003ebecoming morally good\u003c/em\u003e fosters the idea that receiving an i-deal is not merely about individual gain but is connected to ethical behavior and fulfilling the organization\u0026rsquo;s expectations. When employees internalize the notion that i-deals are not arbitrary rewards but tools that support those who uphold moral and organizational values, the risk of i-dealers developing a sense of entitlement is reduced. Additionally, coworkers are less likely to perceive i-deals as unfair advantages, as they come to see them as an ethical and legitimate part of workplace operations, thereby mitigating malicious envy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommunication emphasizing ethics/relationthips\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany A,C,D do not rely solely on top-down vision dissemination but rather emphasize dialogue between supervisors and employees to shape employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of i-deals. This approach focuses on workplace communication that encourages employees to interpret workplace events\u0026mdash;such as the granting of i-deals\u0026mdash;through a relational or ethical lens rather than a competitive or instrumental one. Two key strategies support this communication-based approach: \u003cem\u003eavoiding the use of competitive metaphors\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eformation of collectivity through communication\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAvoiding the use of competitive metaphors\u003c/em\u003e refers to the conscious avoidance of expressions that frame workplace relationships in terms of competition, rivalry, or opposition. Phrases such as \"I am competing with that person\" or \"We are professional rivals\" are deliberately discouraged in everyday workplace conversations. By reducing the presence of competitive language, i-deals are less likely to be framed as prizes for the winners or unfair advantages gained through competition, helping to prevent both a sense of entitlement among i-dealers and envy among their coworkers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eFormation of collectivity through communication\u003c/em\u003e involves reinforcing the idea that no one can succeed alone and that individual achievements are made possible by the collective efforts of the team. Through regular conversations in the workplace, supervisors emphasize that organizational success is a shared effort and that i-deals should be understood as part of this collective dynamic rather than as isolated rewards for individuals. By embedding this perspective in daily communication, employees are encouraged to see i-deals not as special privileges but as rational adjustments necessary for the functioning of the team.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, such ethical/relational framing was absent in Company B, where i-deals had previously contributed to the breakdown of collaboration and even employee turnover. This contrast suggests that while reshaping institutional conditions and preventing social comparisons may help reduce tensions, they are necessary but not sufficient for mitigating workplace individualization. It is the presence of an ethical or relational interpretive lens that appears to deepen and stabilize these mitigating effects, allowing organizations to buffer against the divisive potential of i-deals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntegrative Model of i-deals, individualization, and mitigating mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat emerges from our findings is an integrative model about individualistic drift triggered by i-deals and mechanisms of mitigation (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). To mitigate the individualizing effects of i-deals, these Asian organizations employed three complementary mechanisms, each targeting a different level of interpretation. First, \u003cem\u003eReshaping institutional conditions\u003c/em\u003e offered a rational framework that legitimized i-deals through principles such as transparent access and multifaceted evaluation, helping recipients and coworkers view them as fair. Second, \u003cem\u003epreventing social comparison\u003c/em\u003e worked to suppress negative emotions like envy and entitlement by cognitively distancing employees from status-based comparisons. However, these two alone proved insufficient, as they did not alter how i-deals were fundamentally understood. The third mechanism\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003etaking an ethical or relational lens\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;played a meta-cognitive role by reframing i-deals as expressions of collective purpose and moral contribution. This lens deepened the effects of the other two, enabling organizations to reinterpret i-deals not as special privileges, but as aligned with shared values and team functioning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eMitigating the Individualization Effect of i-deals\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study investigated how i-deals may contribute to the individualization of the workplace and how organizations seek to mitigate such effects. Based on qualitative data from four Asian companies, we examined how psychological entitlement among i-dealers and malicious envy among coworkers can disrupt workplace cooperation and trigger a subtle shift toward individualistic workplace norms. Our analysis identified three key mechanisms\u0026mdash;(1) reshaping institutional conditions, (2) preventing social comparison, and (3) taking an ethical/ relational lens\u0026mdash;that help buffer these effects. Importantly, these mechanisms operate on distinct but complementary levels: reshaping institutional conditions contribute to cognitive legitimacy, preventing social comparison regulates emotional responses, and taking an ethical/relational lens reframe the broader metacognitive interpretation of i-deals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings support previous claims that procedural justice fosters the acceptance of i-deals by both recipients and coworkers (Greenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Marescaux et al., 2019; Van Waeyenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Mechanisms such as multifaceted evaluation, transparency of evaluation, and accessibility serve to legitimize i-deals and enhance perceived fairness. However, consistent with critical perspectives in organizational justice (van Dijke et al., 2010) and public philosophy (Wolff \u0026amp; De-Shalit, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), we also found that procedural justice can paradoxically intensify entitlement and envy\u0026mdash;by reinforcing the legitimacy of differential treatment, it may reduce ambiguity but increase emotional salience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo mitigate these risks, organizations must go beyond procedural justice and address the cognitive-emotional processes associated with social comparisons. Our study identified two levels of social comparison cancellation: downward comparisons (which feed i-dealer entitlement) and upward comparisons (which provoke coworker envy). Mechanisms such as promoting aspirational comparisons, reducing direct contact between coworkers and i-dealers, and reframing i-deals in the context of broader market competition helped reduce emotional tension and protected workplace harmony.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStill, these first two mechanisms alone were insufficient. Only in Companies A, C, and D\u0026mdash;where an ethical or relational lens was present\u0026mdash;were the effects of i-deals successfully mitigated. In contrast, Company B experienced relational breakdown and turnover despite procedural fairness and social comparison reduction. This suggests that ethical/relational framing\u0026mdash;through communicative strategies, moral metaphors, and shared values\u0026mdash;is a critical moderator. It reframes i-deals as organizational necessities or moral contributions, not individual wins, helping to alter the metacognitive framework through which employees interpret privilege and difference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical logic behind this finding is further supported by the conceptual metaphor perspective (Lakoff \u0026amp; Johnson, 2003). According to this theory, metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but core elements of human cognition that shape how individuals perceive and respond to the world. In workplaces where metaphors such as \u0026ldquo;career is a competition\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;workplace is a battlefield\u0026rdquo; dominate, i-deals tend to be interpreted as exclusive rewards for winners. These metaphorical framings reinforce individualistic interpretations, leading i-dealers to feel entitled and coworkers to experience envy. By contrast, when organizations deliberately promote ethical or relational metaphors\u0026mdash;such as \u0026ldquo;shared growth\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;mutual support\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;employees are more likely to see i-deals as functional tools aligned with collective goals, thereby reducing the risk of divisive responses. In this way, conceptual metaphors serve as deep interpretive frames that shape emotional and behavioral responses to workplace differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach of the three mitigation mechanisms plays a distinct role. First, institutional conditions offer cognitive legitimacy to i-deals by establishing rules, evaluation criteria, and access conditions. Second, social comparison reduction targets the emotional dynamics of entitlement and envy by disrupting direct or hostile comparisons. Third, ethical/relational lens reshape the deeper cognitive structures through which employees interpret i-deals\u0026mdash;particularly their meaning, fairness, and relational implications. These three mechanisms are not interchangeable. The first two are necessary but insufficient without the third. The ethical/relational lens serves as a meta-frame that enables the stabilizing of justice and emotion management strategies. Each mechanism addresses a different layer of how i-deals are experienced and interpreted: rational legitimacy (cognition), emotional management, and moral framing (metacognition). Their combined implementation creates a multi-level buffer against the drift toward individualism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study does not adopt a national comparative design. Rather, we treat the four companies as diverse organizational cases embedded in the broader cultural logics of collectivist Asia. The variation in outcomes across these companies is interpreted not as a product of national culture per se, but as evidence of organizational-level strategies that either mitigate or amplify the divisive potential of i-deals. Our findings emphasize how culturally situated but locally constructed framing practices shape the consequences of individualized employment arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContributions to Scholarship\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study offers three theoretical contributions to the literature on i-deals, justice, and organizational meaning-making. First, it complicates the assumption that procedural justice is uniformly beneficial. While enhancing legitimacy (Greenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Marescaux et al., 2019), our findings show that procedural justic can also amplify entitlement and envy when it reinforces the visibility and certainty of unequal treatment. This supports critiques from justice research and political philosophy (van Dijke et al., 2010; Wolff \u0026amp; De-Shalit, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) on the unintended costs of fairness. Second, we develop an integrative model showing that three mechanisms\u0026mdash;reshaping institutional conditions, preventing social comparison, and taking an ethical/relational lens\u0026mdash;jointly shape how i-deals influence workplace dynamics. This framework advances prior research by linking cognitive, emotional, and interpretive processes in mitigating individualization. Third, by applying the conceptual metaphor perspective (Lakoff \u0026amp; Johnson, 2003), we show that metaphors significantly shape how i-deals are understood. Competitive metaphors frame i-deals as individual victories, while ethical or collective metaphors support more cooperative interpretations. This highlights the role of symbolic framing in sustaining workplace cohesion under individualized HR practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplications for Practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study offers practical guidance not only on \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e organizations should do to mitigate the individualizing effects of i-deals, but also on \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e they can do so effectively. First, organizations should strengthen institutional conditions by publicly clarifying the criteria and processes for granting i-deals, conducting internal audits for fairness, and training managers to communicate decisions transparently to all stakeholders. Second, to reduce the negative emotional effects of social comparison, organizations should proactively address how employees perceive differences in treatment. This can involve presenting i-deals as responses to specific roles or responsibilities rather than as rewards for personal superiority, and minimizing opportunities for direct comparison by being mindful of who knows what and how such information is shared. Third, and most crucially, organizations should embed an ethical or relational lens into their culture by using inclusive metaphors, encouraging leaders to share stories that emphasize collective benefit, and crafting HR communications that highlight shared values. These actions work in tandem: procedural clarity builds legitimacy, social comparison management regulates emotional responses, and ethical framing reshapes employees\u0026rsquo; interpretations. Together, they allow i-deals to support motivation without undermining relational cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA few limitations of this study merit consideration. First, our qualitative research interviews were conducted within four Asian companies, which makes it difficult to claim statistical generalizability. Future studies should examine the transferability of our findings across different cultural, industrial, or organizational contexts. Comparative studies could also explore whether similar mitigation mechanisms function differently across various institutional settings. Second, while our analysis drew on interview data from multiple stakeholders, including i-dealers, coworkers, supervisors, and HR professionals, longitudinal data would allow for a better understanding of how these perceptions evolve over time\u0026mdash;particularly how entitlement and envy develop, stabilize, or dissipate. Third, although we identified ethical/relational lens as key moderating factors, further research is needed to understand how this lens is constructed, maintained, or disrupted in everyday organizational discourse. Future research could also explore the role of leaders and peer influencers in shaping these interpretive frames, especially in hybrid or remote work environments where shared meaning may be harder to sustain.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study shows that i-deals, while often celebrated for their motivational and retention benefits, can also make workplace individualization escalated by triggering i-dealers\u0026rsquo; entitlement and coworkers\u0026rsquo; envy. The solution, as we argue, does not lie solely in procedural fairness or emotional regulation. Rather, it requires organizations to actively reshape how i-deals are framed and perceived. Institutional conditions and social comparison strategies are necessary, but not sufficient. It is the presence of ethical and relational interpretive lens\u0026mdash;rooted in cultural metaphors and moral meaning-making that enables organizations to mitigate the divisive effects of i-deals. In doing so, organizations can protect workplace cohesion while still accommodating individual needs, ultimately ensuring that i-deals serve as instruments of cooperation rather than fragmentation\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAll authors declare that: (1) no support, financial or otherwise, has been received from any organization that may have an interest in the submitted work; and (2) there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of Kobe University. When responding to the questionnaire, we confirm in writing that (1) responses are voluntary and that they have the right not to respond, (2) responses are to be anonymous, and (3) only the researcher has access to the responses, not the employer or human resources staff of the company to which they belong.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., \u0026amp; Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 53\u003c/em\u003e(5), 970\u0026ndash;988.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnand, S., Hu, J., Vidyarthi, P., \u0026amp; Liden, R. C. (2018). Leader-member exchange as a linking pin in the idiosyncratic deals-Performance relationship in workgroups. \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 698-708.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBal, P. M., \u0026amp; D\u0026oacute;ci, E. (2018). Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 536-548.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBal, P. M., \u0026amp; Hornung, S. (2019). Individualization of work: From psychological contracts to idiosyncratic deals. In Greap, Y., \u0026amp; Cooper, C. (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Research on the Psychological Contract at Work.\u003c/em\u003e Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeck, U., \u0026amp; Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). \u003cem\u003eIndividualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences.\u003c/em\u003e SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorden, A. and Sainsbury, R. (2006). \u003cem\u003eUsing Verbatim Quotations in Reporting Qualitative Social Research: Researchers\u0026rsquo; Views\u003c/em\u003e. York: University of York. 11\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGachayeva, S., Murphy, S., \u0026amp; Aldossari, M. (2024). Through the Lens of Justice: A Qualitative Investigation into Co‐workers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of I‐deals. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., \u0026amp; Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Research Methods, 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;31. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlaser, B. G., \u0026amp; Strauss, A. L. (1967). \u003cem\u003eThe discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research\u003c/em\u003e. Aldine.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, J., Roberge, M. \u0026Eacute;., Ho, V. T., \u0026amp; Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Justice in idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an I-deal. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Personnel and Human Resources Management\u003c/em\u003e, 23, 1\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHo, V. T. (2005). Social influence on evaluations of psychological contract fulfillment. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 113-128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofstede, G. (2001). \u003cem\u003eCulture\u0026apos;s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelly, C. M., Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., Ogbonnaya, C., Marescaux, E., \u0026amp; Bosch, M. J. (2020). Seeking an \u0026ldquo;i-deal\u0026rdquo; balance: Schedule-flexibility i-deals as mediating mechanisms between supervisor emotional support and employee work and home performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e, 103369.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKong, D. T., Ho, V. T., and Garg, S. (2020) Employee and coworker idiosyncratic deals: Implications for emotional exhaustion and deviant behaviors, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 164, 593-609.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLakoff, G., \u0026amp; Johnson, M. (2003). \u003cem\u003eMetaphors we live by\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLas Heras, M., Rofcanin, Y., Matthijs Bal, P., \u0026amp; Stollberger, J. (2017). How do flexibility i‐deals relate to work performance? Exploring the roles of family performance and organizational context. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1280-1294.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLind, E. A., \u0026amp; Tyler, T. R. (1988). \u003cem\u003eThe social psychology of procedural justice\u003c/em\u003e. Springer Science \u0026amp; Business Media.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., \u0026amp; Wu, L. Z. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 98(5), 832-840.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuong, H. V. (2023). The State, Local Sociocultural Landscape, and Global Neoliberal Ideology in Vietnam: A Dialogic Process. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Asian Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(3), 311-338.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarescaux, E., Winne, S. D. and Sels, L. (2019) Idiosyncratic deals from a distributive justice perspective: Examining co-workers\u0026apos; voice behavior, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 154, 263-281.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarkus, H. R., \u0026amp; Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review, 98\u003c/em\u003e(2), 224\u0026ndash;253.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurphy, W. M., Kram, K. E., \u0026amp; Doh, J. P. (2017). Strategic relationships at work: Creating your circle of mentors, sponsors, and peers for success in business and life. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 43\u003c/em\u003e(3), 856\u0026ndash;879. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg, T. W., \u0026amp; Feldman, D. C. (2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e(3), 419-427.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOchiai, E. (2009). Care diamonds and welfare regimes in East and South‐East Asian societies: Bridging family and welfare sociology. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Japanese Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 60-78.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRawls, J. (1958), Justice as justice, \u003cem\u003eThe Philosophical Review\u003c/em\u003e, 67, 2, 164-194.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRousseau, D. M. (2005). \u003cem\u003eI-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves\u003c/em\u003e. M.E. Sharpe.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSennett, R. (1998). \u003cem\u003eThe corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism.\u003c/em\u003e W.W. Norton \u0026amp; Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., \u0026amp; Mayer, D. M. (2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural justice effects. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(3), 488.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Waeyenberg, T., Brebels, L., De Winne, S., \u0026amp; Marescaux, E. (2023). What does your i-deal say about me? A social comparison examination of coworker reactions to flexibility i-deals. Group \u0026amp; Organization Management, 48(1), 192-223.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWasti, S. A., Ersoy, N. C., \u0026amp; Erdogan, B. (2022). I-deals in context: a summary and critical review of i-deals literature around the globe. \u003cem\u003eIdiosyncratic deals at work: Exploring individual, organizational, and societal perspectives\u003c/em\u003e, 257-307.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolff, J. (1998). Justice, respect, and the egalitarian ethos. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophy \u0026amp; Public Affairs\u003c/em\u003e, 27(2), 97\u0026ndash;122.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolff, J., \u0026amp; De-Shalit, A. (2007). \u003cem\u003eDisadvantage\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, W., Zhang, Y., Ni, D., Li, S., Wu, S., Yu, Z., ... \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2022). The relationship between idiosyncratic deals and employee workplace deviance: The moderating role of exchange ideology. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, 135, 103726.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZwank, A., Sch\u0026auml;fer, S., \u0026amp; Wehner, M. C. (2022). The darker sides of calling: A qualitative study of perceptions and consequences among social entrepreneurs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics, 178\u003c/em\u003e(2), 377\u0026ndash;395\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-journal-of-business-ethics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ajbe","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian Journal of Business Ethics](https://link.springer.com/journal/13520)","snPcode":"13520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/13520/3","title":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"i-deals, individualization of workplace, procedural justice, social comparison, ethical/relational lens","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6845841/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6845841/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates how idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) may unintentionally promote workplace individualization, and how organizations can mitigate this effect. Drawing on qualitative data from four organizations in Asia, we explore how i-deals trigger entitlement among recipients and malicious envy among coworkers\u0026mdash;both of which threaten cooperative norms and workplace cohesion. The findings reveal three organizational mechanisms that counter these effects: (1) institutional conditions (e.g., transparent evaluation, accessibility) help legitimize i-deals, (2) cancelling social comparisons reduces emotional tensions, and (3) ethical and relational framing reshapes how employees interpret the presence of i-deals. Building on a combined grounded theory and Gioia methodology, the study develops an integrative model that distinguishes between the cognitive, emotional, and interpretive functions of these mechanisms. Furthermore, it shows that procedural justice, while essential, can paradoxically reinforce status distinctions and psychological tension if not embedded within a relationally grounded narrative. We propose a three-tier model integrating legitimacy, emotion regulation, and moral framing to mitigate this drift. These findings contribute to the literature on i-deals, workplace justice, and employment individualization by identifying strategies that help organizations retain talent without eroding cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Mitigating the Individualistic Drift of I-Deals: Lessons from Japanese and Vietnamese Organizations","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-16 09:11:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6845841/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-08T08:46:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-07T19:39:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"303563910371768909085407198974000882631","date":"2025-10-07T12:51:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"250971878344316274547313915699372127425","date":"2025-07-09T07:32:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-01T08:44:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"185866440036340424874453821449214892053","date":"2025-06-14T19:03:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-12T14:57:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-09T12:53:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-09T12:49:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","date":"2025-06-08T06:28:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-journal-of-business-ethics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ajbe","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian Journal of Business Ethics](https://link.springer.com/journal/13520)","snPcode":"13520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/13520/3","title":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7fae944c-c842-4b97-a29e-301309b39512","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-02T16:02:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6845841","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-026-00253-3","journal":{"identity":"asian-journal-of-business-ethics","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-27 15:59:13","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 27th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-16 09:11:49","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s13520-026-00253-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-026-00253-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6845841","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6845841","identity":"rs-6845841","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}