A colleague’s success: should managers discourage envy?
In Zurich’s financial services, insurance, tech and European headquarters of international groups, appointments make differences in career progression visible. The management question is specific: how can a manager respond to an unfavourable comparison without moralising about the emotion or tolerating behaviour that undermines cooperation?
What the literature establishes
Niels van de Ven, Marcel Zeelenberg and Rik Pieters (2009, Emotion) distinguish two experiences of envy: one directed towards improving one’s own position, the other towards bringing down the person who holds the advantage. Both are unpleasant; the difference is therefore not simply a matter of how intense the discomfort feels. This distinction invites managers to examine what the comparison motivates people to do, rather than treating all envy as a moral failing.
The comparison mechanism
Leon Festinger (1954, Human Relations) proposes a theoretical framework in which people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves with others, particularly when objective reference points are unavailable. An appointment can therefore become information about one’s own standing, not merely about a colleague’s success. Applied to management, this framework suggests making progression criteria open to factual discussion rather than simply asking people to be pleased.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that managers should stimulate “good envy” to increase effort. Yet the cited work does not establish that deliberately organised competition produces lasting improvements in collective work. For SHR’s “Emotional Intelligence” programme, the useful distinction is between understanding an emotion and endorsing the actions it may inspire: acknowledging a painful comparison does not require accepting disparagement. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
The distinction between forms of envy is neither an individual diagnosis nor an evaluation of a company’s promotion system. Social comparison theory does not establish that explaining criteria is enough to make a decision fair, either. Managers therefore need to examine emotional experience, observable behaviour and the soundness of allocation rules separately.
A practical check in Zurich
In a Zurich team, SHR can propose testing an individual conversation about decision criteria and opportunities for progression when responsibility is next assigned. Over a four-week pilot period, record the proportion of conversations that lead to a written next step with an observable criterion and a follow-up date. On that date, check whether the step has actually been initiated, without asking employees to disclose feelings of envy. These indicators measure whether discussion translates into action, not whether the emotion has disappeared or the original decision was fair. To go further: explore the Emotional Intelligence training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Emotional Intelligence in Zurich
- emotional intelligence
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich