Article Review — Comments

"Silently Stepping Back: Exploring the Mediating Role of Workplace Jealousy in the Link between Perceived Favoritism and Work Withdrawal Behavior" Aditi Gupta Assistant Professor, Graphic era hill university, Dehradun Apoorva Assistant Professor School of Business, Galgotias University Corresponding author Abstract Purpose: Organizations are increasingly worried about work withdrawal behavior, which includes psychological disengagement, absenteeism, and lower productivity.

Traditional models ascribe these actions to stress or burnout; however, the influence of specific workplace emotions, such as envy, is insufficiently examined.

This study examines how perceived favoritism by bosses can incite workplace jealousy, subsequently resulting in withdrawal behaviors among employees.

Design/methodology/approach: This research utilizes a mixed-methods approach, commencing with semi-structured interviews to investigate the lived experiences of employees across various organizational contexts.

Next, there is a survey-based study with 412 workers from medium- to large-sized businesses.

We will utilize Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to see if jealousy is a middleman between perceived favoritism and withdrawal behaviors.

Findings- Utilizing Affective Events Theory and Equity Theory, we define jealousy as an emotional reaction to perceived unfairness and unequal acknowledgment, which consequently results in employees withdrawing from their work.

Initial findings indicate that envy functions as a crucial emotional mechanism through which favoritism indirectly results in disengagement and work withdrawal behavior.

Originality/value- The findings provide practical guidance for HR professionals and organizational leaders to identify emotional indicators, enhance recognition equity, and preemptively tackle workplace jealousy.

This study improves comprehension of the emotional dynamics inside corporate behaviour and proposes creative techniques for enhancing employee engagement and psychological well-being.

Keywords –Perceivedfavoritism, Workplace jealousy, Work withdrawal behavior, and Equity theory.

Paper type - Research paper Introduction In contemporary, intricate work environments, employee engagement has become pivotal to organizational sustainability and success.

Companies are becoming more aware of small changes in behavior that show an employee is not engaged in their work, which is called job withdrawal behavior.

These behaviors encompass absenteeism, less discretionary effort, disengagement, and psychological detachment (Lehman & Simpson, 1992).

Traditional research typically links withdrawal to job dissatisfaction, burnout, or role conflict (Hom et al., 2017); however, modern techniques acknowledge the influence of emotions and interpersonal interactions in triggering such disengagement.

A notable emotional response identified in organizational research is workplace envy, a multifaceted reaction to perceived disparities in recognition, incentives, or treatment among colleagues.

Workplace jealousy frequently arises when an individual believes a colleague has obtained an advantage—such as fame, prominence, or career opportunities—that they consider unmerited or unjust (Vecchio, 2005).

Jealousy can occasionally act as a motivating factor; nevertheless, it predominantly presents as resentment, insecurity, or social comparison, negatively impacting work attitudes and behaviors (Exline & Lobel, 1999).

Perceived partiality is a common thing that happens in organizations and makes people jealous.

When managers or leaders are thought to always favor particular people, it can break down trust and make teams feel bad.

(Ogunfowora et al., 2013).

When workers sense they are being treated unfairly, they typically feel angry, alone, and less motivated.

This could lead individuals to cease working, not by publicly resisting but by pulling back in little ways, including putting in less effort or becoming emotionally aloof (Tepper, 2000).

Even though these interactions have big effects on people's emotions and behavior, there hasn't been enough research on how perceived favoritism, workplace envy, and job withdrawal behavior are related.

A significant body of modern research examines these variables in isolation, neglecting the emotional mechanisms that link perceptions of unfairness to disengaged workplace behaviour.

This study examines the mediating role of workplace envy in the link between perceived favouritism and work disengagement.

Jealousy at work is different from envy in that it has its own traits that make it extremely disruptive in organisations.

Jealousy is different from envy since it involves three people: the employee, a competitor, and a third person who is important to the employee, like a boss or a colleague.

This distinction is crucial, as jealousy often stems from the fear of losing recognition, resources, or trust to a colleague, leading to heightened emotional suffering compared to simple upward comparison.

Research indicates that jealousy is intensified by competitive work environments, social comparisons, and perceptions of unfair favouritism, resulting in consequences that extend far beyond individual emotions.

When workers are jealous, they are less inclined to collaborate with others, share knowledge, be kind and helpful, or even think about abandoning their jobs.

These little but widespread effects can make it harder for people to work together, lower morale, and impair organisational citizenship over time.

Some studies suggest that personality attributes like high self-esteem or strong emotional stability may help with these problems, but jealousy that isn't kept in check is still a major source of stress that hurts employee well-being and the success of the whole company.

A recent study underscores the imperative of confronting favouritism and jealousy in professional environments.

SHRM surveys from 2022 show that almost one-third of voluntary turnover is caused by feelings of favouritism.

Gallup also states that companies lose up to 18% of their yearly pay in lost productivity because of disengaged employees, many of whom believe unjust treatment is why they are not working hard.These numbers show that favouritism and its emotional effects are not just abstract problems; they are real dangers to the effectiveness, morale, and retention of an organisation.

A recent study shows that favouritism and its emotional effects might have real dangers for organisations.

According to a recent Forbes poll, 9 out of 10 workers have seen favouritism at work, and 1 out of 4 see it all the time.

Two out of five employees have thought about quitting their job because of favouritism, and one out of ten are actively preparing to do so this year, according to Forbes.

The ripple effects are obvious, even if each person wants to leave: 72% of workers don't trust their leaders anymore, and 68% say that team morale has gone down because they think some people are being favoured.

Forbes.

Perceived unfairness is also a cause of almost half of all workplace disagreements, which shows how favouritism can hurt team chemistry.

Replacing frontline workers can cost 40% to 80% of their income around the world, and for leadership posts, it can cost up to 200%.

Forum for Employers in India.

In India, where the average yearly turnover rate is about 18%, replacing an employee might cost up to twice their compensation.

These data clearly illustrate that favouritism and its emotional implications, including jealousy, are not just notions; they are major reasons why people leave their jobs, stop working, and lose productivity.

These issues also have significant cultural ramifications.

The Indian context of this study is especially relevant, as workplace dynamics in collectivist nations often emphasise harmony, loyalty, and interpersonal relationships.

In these situations, favouritism may be seen as not only unfair but also as a violation of social cohesion, which can make people feel more envious and alone.

In individualistic societies, favouritism may be interpreted as rivalry or bias, resulting in a less direct impact on group morale.

Highlighting this disparity underscores the need of examining favoritism–jealousy relationships within many cultural contexts.

Although these connections profoundly influence individuals' feelings and behaviours, there is a deficiency of thorough study regarding the associations between perceived favouritism, workplace jealousy, and job withdrawal behaviour.

A significant body of recent research examines these variables independently, neglecting the emotional processes that link views of injustice to disengaged workplace behaviour.

This study examines the mediating role of workplace envy in the relationship between perceived favouritism and job withdrawal, thereby addressing the existing gap.

This study seeks to elucidate the impact of interpersonal perceptions on workplace engagement, grounded in Affective Events Theory (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996), It asserts thatemotional responses to workplace occurrences influence behaviour, and Equity Theory (Adams, 1965), which asserts that perceptions of fairness serve as a significant motivator.

This study investigates an emotional pathway, enhancing the current literature on workplace emotions and offering pragmatic suggestions for fostering equitable, emotionally intelligent, and inclusive organisational settings.

This study is motivated by both its theoretical framework and pressing organisational challenges.

Favouritism and the jealousy it produces are not simply ideas; they are real behaviours that happen at work that hurt productivity, teamwork, and keeping employees.

When employees believe things are unfair, they lose trust in their leaders and motivation, which makes them less likely to work hard and damages the success of the company.

These dynamics are especially pertinent in modern workplaces characterised by varied teams, intense competition, and the necessity for transparent, meritocratic recognition systems.

In collectivist and rising economies like India, where interpersonal relationships and perceptions of fairness significantly influence work conditions, the repercussions of favouritism can be more severe.

This study investigates a previously underexplored emotional pathway, enhancing both theoretical understanding and practical application by providing organisations with insights to create more equitable assessment systems, foster emotional intelligence in leadership, and reinforce a culture of inclusion.

The utilisation of a mixed-methods approach alongside Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) ensures qualitative depth and statistical robustness, guaranteeing that the outcomes offer both researchers and practitioners nuanced, evidence-based guidance.

Theoretical Background 2.1 Relationship between Perceived favoritism and work withdrawal behavior.

Perceived favoritism is when an employee thinks that supervisors or management are treating some employees better than others, even if they don't deserve it or do a good job (Erdogan & Liden, 2006; Ogunfowora et al., 2013).

This perception frequently arises from inequitable access to rewards, recognition, opportunities, or managerial support.Favoritism may not be intentional; yet, its impact on perceptions of organizational fairness is significant and frequently harmful (Jawahar, 2007).

When employees perceive inequitable treatment compared to their colleagues, it can result in many detrimental emotional and behavioral consequences.

One of the most common things that happens when people think they are being favored is that they stop working.

Employees who feel left out because of favoritism are less likely to put their heart and mind into their work.

They typically see withdrawal as a way to protest or deal with their feelings.

(Hom et al., 2017).Theoretical frameworks provide an understanding of this interaction.

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) asserts that individuals evaluate justice by juxtaposing their input-output ratios with those of others.

When favoritism upsets this perceived balance by giving some people more attention or awards without putting in the same amount of work, employees may decide to leave to restore fairness.

Affective Events Theory (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996) explains how negative emotional responses to workplace events, like perceived injustice, change into work-related attitudes and behaviours over time.

Numerous empirical studies validate the correlation between perceived prejudice and disengagement.

Tepper et al. (2011) discovered that perceptions of inequitable supervisory conduct, including favoritism, correlated positively with psychological retreat and diminished organizational commitment.

Kanten and Ulker (2013) noted that perceived organizational injustice, frequently arising from favoritism, was a notable predictor of disengagement and absence.

Lee and Duffy (2019) asserted that when employees witness their peers experiencing unfair treatment, it might undermine their motivation, leading to diminished performance and, eventually, emotional disengagement.

In short, favoritism makes employees feel like they don't belong or that things aren't fair, which often leads them to retreat as a way to cope with their feelings or as a way to protest without saying anything.

Organizations must recognize the lasting effects of bias and promote fairness and transparency to maintain employee engagement.

H1: Perceived favoritism is positively associated with work withdrawal behavior.

2.2 Relationship between Perceived favoritism and workplace jealousy Perceived favoritism is when an employee thinks that their boss gives specific people unfair advantages, including recognition, incentives, or chances, regardless of how good they are (Ogunfowora et al., 2013; Erdogan & Liden, 2006).

This view frequently contravenes ideals of fairness and equity, resulting in adverse emotional responses among individuals who perceive themselves as neglected.

One such response is workplace jealousy, which is when someone feels envious, resentful, and insecure because they think a coworker has an unfair advantage (Vecchio, 2005; Smith & Kim, 2007).

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) posits that employees experience unhappiness when they perceive a disparity in the distribution of effort and rewards, typically manifesting as envy or disengagement.

Likewise, Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) posits that in contexts characterized by frequent peer assessments and acknowledgment, perceived favoritism exacerbates comparisons and emotional distress (Duffy et al., 2012).

Studies show that favouritism makes conflicts between people much worse, lowers morale, and makes people emotionally withdraw, especially when there is no transparency (Davis, 2016; Scott et al., 2014).

When employees perceive their coworkers earning promotions or recognition they don't deserve, they are more likely to feel jealous.

This can harm trust and teamwork (Khan et al., 2021; Sy et al., 2006).

Jealousy can lead to emotional detachment or passive-aggressive behaviour over time, which can affect both the performance and the culture of the organisation.

In conclusion, perceived bias skews people's ideas of justice and is a big part of what causes job envy, which can have a big impact on both personal health and group dynamics.

H2: Perceived favoritism is positively associated with workplace jealousy.

2.3 Relationship between workplace jealousy and work withdrawal behavior Jealousy comprises a combination of envy, insecurity, and fury.

This typically occurs when individuals compare themselves to others in a manner that induces negative feelings or perceive their organization as unjust.

Jealousy is an internal emotional phenomenon that strongly influences behavior, potentially impacting individual job performance and team cohesion.

One effect is work withdrawal behavior, which involves not fulfilling your work tasks in any way, whether physically or mentally.

This includes not showing up, not putting in enough effort, presenteeism, or not being emotionally involved in duties (Lehman & Simpson, 1992; Hom et al., 2017).

Jealousy can make people feel horrible about themselves and like they aren't being treated or seen right.

This might make them desire to escape their work psychologically as a means to deal with it (Exline & Lobel, 1999; Duffy et al., 2012).

Affective Events Theory (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996) posits that emotional responses to workplace occurrences substantially affect behavioral results.

(Tepper et al., 2011; Lee & Duffy, 2019).

In short, envy at work is an emotional stressor that harms employee well-being and often leads to behaviors that make them want to leave their jobs.

These responses may be minor, but they may have a big impact on how well an organization works.

This is why it's so important for managers to be aware of and deal with the emotional climate within teams.

H3: Workplace jealousy is positively associated with work withdrawal behavior.

2.4 Mediating effect of workplace jealousy Feeling like things aren't fair at work, especially if you think someone is getting special treatment, can have big effects on your emotions and conduct.

Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) posits that individuals perpetually assess their status in relation to others, with overt favoritism exacerbating this comparison and resulting in envy.

This emotion is not solely internal; it can influence interpersonal relationships and incite counterproductive conduct (Duffy et al., 2012; Lee & Duffy, 2019).

Jealousy can serve as a mediator between perceived favoritism and job withdrawal behaviors, encompassing psychological detachment, reduced effort, absenteeism, and disengagement (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Hom et al., 2017).

The Affective Events Theory (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996) posits that emotional responses to workplace incidents, such as perceived injustice, can influence employee attitudes and behaviors.

When favouritism breeds jealousy, it transforms into an emotional burden that compels individuals to safeguard their self-esteem by abstaining from workplace involvement (Meier & Spector, 2013).

Empirical studies validate this mediation mechanism.

Knyazev et al. (2020) found that jealousy caused by feeling like things aren't fair is a strong sign that someone is going to burn out or lose interest in their work.

Scott et al. (2014) discovered that emotions such as envy and jealousy can influence the relationship between perceived unfairness and poor job behaviour.

Employees who feel emotionally threatened by the preferential treatment of others may engage in quiet resistance by retreating instead of confronting the source directly (Tepper et al., 2011).

In summary, workplace envy serves as a substantial emotional link between the cognitive acknowledgement of bias and behavioural disengagement.

Companies that wish to promote fairness, deal with emotional issues, and keep their staff interested need to know about this job.

H4: Workplace jealousy mediates the relationship between perceived favoritism and work withdrawal behavior.

Theoretical Model This study aims to investigate the impact of workplace favouritism on job withdrawal behaviour, as well as the mediating role of envy.

The researchers established the hypotheses based on the literature review, which then facilitated the creation of the conceptual framework(Figure 1).

Figure 1: Conceptual framework Materials and Methods Demographic information The researchers administered an online survey to a diverse sample of 436 employees from medium to large firms.

We solicited these individuals to complete an online survey regarding the components of the structures from January to February 2025.

By examining the impact of envy on job withdrawal behaviour, we discerned the influence of favouritism on the same phenomenon.

The data was gathered through a networking technique known as snowball sampling on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

A total of 436 individuals from various companies throughout PAN India were recruited for the study via snowball sampling.

Out of 436 returned questionnaires, 412 were completed satisfactorily and deemed suitable for further research.

There were 181 women (43.9%), 226 males (54.8%), and 5 employees who did not disclose their gender (1.21%).

The staff's ages ranged from 24 to 58 years.

Prior to the interventions, each participant provided their informed consent.

Their names were absent from the evaluations; hence, the confidentiality of the employees' responses was assured.

4.2 Measurement The tools employed to assess the constructions were derived from established scales, as detailed below.

The Favouritism Scale, developed by Erdogan and Liden (2006), was utilised to assess favouritism in the workplace.

This survey aims to gauge employees' impressions of supervisors exhibiting favouritism.

It has seven items on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Instances include “My supervisor exhibits preferential treatment towards specific employees without a rationale.” Workplace Jealousy Scale (WJS) by Vecchio (2005), which consists of 6 items and is graded on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “Never”; 5 = “Very often”), was modified and used to assess workplace jealousy from the perspective of employees. “I feel jealous when a co-worker receives more praise than I do” is an example.

Finally, Work Withdrawal Behavior was assessed using the Work Withdrawal Behavior Scale developed by Hanisch & Hulin in 199.

Participants were asked to rank their responses on a scale of 1 to 5 (“Strongly agree”), with 1 being the most agreeable and 5 being the most disagreeable.

An example item is “I mentally check out during work hours”.

Analysis and results Normality In Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), it is very important to check if the data is normal at both the univariate and multivariate levels.

Skewness and kurtosis statistics are often used to check for univariate normality.

Kline (2005) says that for univariate normality to happen, the skewness and kurtosis values have to be between ±3 and ±10.

The skewness values in this dataset ranged from 0.051 to 0.511, while the kurtosis values ranged from –0.510 to –1.124.

All of these figures are acceptable, which means that univariate normality is likely present.

The Mardia coefficient is a frequent way to see if multivariate normality is present.

Gao et al. (2014) assert that a critical ratio of the Mardia coefficient, equal to or below 1.96, indicates that the data satisfies the criteria for multivariate normality.

The Mardia critical ratio was determined to be 1.59 in this investigation.

This indicates that the dataset conforms to the criteria for multivariate normalcy.

Reliability We utilised SPSS version 16 to calculate Cronbach's alpha coefficients, which helped us figure out how reliable and consistent the constructs were.

The overall alpha was 0.911, and the Cronbach's alpha values for the hidden variables ranged from 0.833 to 0.975.

This indicates that the variables exhibit considerable similarity to one another.

Nunnally (1978) set a standard that a result higher than 0.60 is enough to show that a construct is reliable.

All of the constructs that were measured, including those that encourage justice at work, were above this threshold.

This means that the data that was collected is correct and trustworthy.

The actual figures for each construct are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1.

Reliability test CFA/Measurement Model We utilised the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method to evaluate the measurement model.

This was the first step in the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) process.

The CFA findings showed that all of the markers were up to par.

The t-values were over 2.50, the standardised factor loadings were over 0.50, and the squared multiple correlations (R²) were over 0.50.

These findings indicate that each examined variable is adequate, signifying that no elements should be excluded from the model (Jöreskog et al., 2006), Table 5.2.

The study utilised Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess construct validity by validating the underlying structure of the latent variables.

We utilised model fit indices to check if the measurement model was acceptable enough.

The values were χ² (462.4, df = 423), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.915, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.961, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.792, Adjusted GFI (AGFI) = 0.832, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.037.

The findings indicate that the model aligns effectively with the data.

The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for each construct exceeded the recommended minimum of 0.50, signifying convergent validity.

(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

All composite reliability scores exceeded the approved level of 0.60, further validating the internal consistency of the constructs.

The AVE and composite reliability values are detailed in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3.

Goodness of fit indices Note: χ2 = Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; IFI =incremental fit index; GFI =goodness-of- fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit-index; RMSEA = rootmean-square error of approximation AVE = average variance extracted, CR = composite reliability Structural model and hypothesis testing Using AMOS software for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) (refer to Figure 2), the structural model was tested by examining the covariance among constructs and identifying the correlations between variables.

AMOS enabled the estimation of direct, indirect, and total effects among the independent, dependent, and mediating variables.

In this model, Workplace Favouritism (WF) was treated as the independent variable, Work Withdrawal Behavior (WWB) as the dependent variable, and Workplace Jealousy (WJ) functioned as the mediator.

All observed indicators were appropriately loaded onto their respective latent constructs before the structural analysis was performed.

The structural model validated all proposed hypotheses and demonstrated a satisfactory model fit: χ² = 123.21, df = 29, p = 0.000; CFI = 0.871, IFI = 0.913, GFI = 0.904, AGFI = 0.917, RMR = 0.036, and RMSEA = 0.028.

H1, which suggested a positive relationship between WF and WWB, was supported (β = 0.74, p < 0.01).H2 proposed a positive association between WF and WJ, and this was also confirmed (β = 0.77, p < 0.01).

H3, which predicted a positive relationship between WJ and WWB, received support as well (β = 0.83, p < 0.01).

The total effect captures the overall impact of OF on WWB, accounting for both its direct and indirect influences.

The indirect effect, mediated through OJ, reflects how WWB changes when WF is held constant but OJ shifts as it would if WF had increased by one unit.

This approach aligns with Hayes' (2009) interpretation of mediation.

A summary of these effects is presented in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4.

Direct effect, indirect effect, and total effects of the variables To test the mediation effect of WJ, the direct effect WF on WWB has a coefficient of 0.71, indirect effect of WF on WWB through a mediating effect of WJ is 0.607 (0.75 x 0.81) and total effect of WF on WWB is 1.022 (0.63 + 0.392).

These results support H4.

WJ has been identified as a mediator in these connections because of the considerable mediating (indirect) effects of WJ on WF and WWB.

Figure 2 Structural Equation Model Discussion and conclusion This study's findings provide significant insight into the emotional and behavioral consequences of perceived workplace favoritism, namely its contribution to work withdrawal behavior (WWB) mediated by workplace jealousy.

The findings corroborate the conceptual framework, demonstrating that bias impacts employees both directly and indirectly by eliciting adverse emotional responses that alter behavior.

The correlation between perceived favoritism and work disengagement corroborates existing literature indicating that employees who perceive unfair treatment or persistent neglect may experience psychological detachment from their positions (Jawahar, 2007; Erdogan & Liden, 2006).

Favoritism diminishes views of equity and procedural justice, which are crucial for employee motivation and engagement.

The research further substantiates that workplace jealousy serves as a crucial mediator in this relationship.

When employees see their coworkers getting praise, promotions, or resources they don't deserve, they may become jealous, which can make them feel angry, insecure, and disconnected (Vecchio, 2005; Smith & Kim, 2007).

This aligns with Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954), which posits that individuals evaluate their standing relative to others in their social or professional context.

When perceived partiality distorts this comparison, it can provoke envy and lead to ineffective coping strategies such as withdrawal.

The positive link between workplace envy and job disengagement reported in this study corresponds with other studies indicating that jealousy induces emotional fatigue and diminishes organizational commitment (Meier & Spector, 2013).

Jealousy not only damages relationships with other people, but it also puts emotional pressure on employees, making them less likely to do their jobs and work with others.

These results show how important it is to keep fairness and openness in supervisory processes in an organization.

Favoritism may benefit certain individuals in the near term, but it can negatively impact overall morale and productivity by fostering jealousy and disengagement among others.

Employees who see favoritism are more likely to feel jealous, which can lead to less involvement, feeling disconnected from others, and eventually not doing their job.

The results show that businesses need to create a fair, welcoming, and merit-based culture.

Managers need to learn how to spot and deal with partiality while also making sure that everyone is treated fairly to avoid emotional problems among personnel.

Theoretically, the study improves understanding of the impact of emotional responses, such as jealousy, on the connection between workplace dynamics and behavioral results.

Future studies may examine moderating variables, such as personality traits or business culture, that could alleviate these effects.

Even while most people think jealousy is bad, it's vital to remember that it can sometimes have good effects.

Previous studies indicate that envy can lead employees to enhance their performance when it incites self-reflection, competitive spirit, or goal attainment (Exline & Lobel, 1999; Duffy et al., 2012).

In this regard, jealousy is not inherently detrimental but rather context-dependent—transforming into a destructive force when unregulated or associated with beliefs of persistent favouritism.

By briefly acknowledging this duality, our study offers a more nuanced perspective and encourages future researchers to investigate the circumstances in which envy may promote growth instead of withdrawal.

7.1 Practical Implications The results of this study have significant ramifications for corporate executives, human resource specialists, and workplace policymakers.

The study demonstrating that favoritism induces employee attrition due to jealousy of colleagues underscores the necessity for transparent and equitable processes in performance evaluations, promotions, and reward systems.

Managers need to learn how to recognize unconscious biases and not display favoritism.

This is crucial because favouritism can hurt team chemistry, lower morale, and make people less motivated at work.

The study also shows that jealousy is harmful for the company since it can change how individuals act and how much work they get done.

Companies may make the workplace more fair and less stressful for workers by doing things like fostering open communication, giving staff therapy, and employing peer feedback systems to stop problems before they start.

Emotional intelligence training should be a part of work programs so that workers can handle sentiments like jealousy instead of ignoring them or not caring about them.

Taking care of both the emotional and structural parts of the work experience can help businesses keep more workers.

This will make people happier at work and keep them there longer.

Companies need to do more than just adjust their rules and processes.

They also need to make the workplace a place where people can talk to each other openly and sort out their differences in a positive way.

Employees can talk about favouritism in a secure place, such a regular meeting, a town hall, or a focus group.

This can help keep them from leaving the company without saying anything.

Adding emotional intelligence training to staff development programs for everyone, not just managers, can help people be more aware of their feelings and more resilient, which can help stop jealously from developing into bad behaviour.

Companies could also think about setting up mentoring or buddy programs.

These can help workers feel less unfairly treated by making sure that everyone has the same chances to move forward in their jobs.

Companies can use data-driven HR analytics to find difficulties that come with favouritism from a tech point of view.

For instance, you could find systematic biases before they get worse by keeping an eye on how promotions, bonuses, and turnover rates fluctuate between departments.

Also, letting workers report problems without giving their name can help them speak up about unfairness without being afraid of getting in trouble.

Leaders need to know how to relate therapies for dealing with envy at work to success indicators like retention rates, engagement scores, and productivity measurements.

These measures show that everyone in the company needs to deal with envy all the time, not just once.

Businesses may not only stop people from quitting, but they can also create a culture of trust, inclusion, and shared success by putting in place clear rules, emotionally savvy leaders, proactive monitoring, and giving employees more control.

7.2 Theoretical Implications The study theoretically contributes to the expanding corpus of research examining the impact of interpersonal perceptions on organisational functioning.

Recognising workplace envy as a mediator improves existing models of workplace conduct and bolsters ideas like Social Comparison Theory and Affective Events Theory, which emphasise the importance of emotional responses in shaping workplace outcomes.

This model can serve as a basis for subsequent investigations into similar emotional systems in response to perceived organisational injustice.

This research further provides several contributions to organisational theory.

By synthesising Equity Theory, Affective Events Theory, and Social Comparison Theory, it connects cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects, providing a comprehensive framework for comprehending disengagement.

The study clarifies emotional frameworks by distinguishing jealousy from envy, defining jealousy as a triadic emotion involving the employee, a competitor, and a relevant third party, rather than a dyadic comparison.

This differentiation improves the accuracy of organisational behaviour research and emphasises the importance of examining intricate emotional trajectories instead of broad classifications of negative affect.

Furthermore, the findings augment mediation studies by demonstrating that favouritism influences withdrawal both directly and indirectly through envy, thereby elucidating the underlying emotional mechanisms that promote disengagement.

The research provides a cross-cultural perspective, as the data were collected in India, a collectivist society, highlighting how favouritism may provoke more intense reactions in cultures that value harmony and equity, thereby enabling comparative studies across various cultural contexts.

The study acknowledges the contradictory nature of envy, suggesting that it often undermines morale and participation, yet may also promote self-improvement and competitive drive in some contexts.

These data are consistent with broader ideas of organisational climate and leadership, suggesting that favouritism and envy are not solely individual issues but also collective dynamics that affect team trust, morale, and leader-member relationships.

Finally, the findings provide a basis for future research by encouraging the examination of moderators such as emotional intelligence, resilience, coping mechanisms, or leadership style, which could clarify the circumstances under which jealousy becomes harmful, when it is alleviated, and when it may serve adaptive functions.

The study contributes to concepts of leadership and organisational equity by demonstrating that favouritism can be a nuanced yet potent catalyst for emotional contagion among teams.

Even if leaders don't want to, showing favouritism can make employees feel like they're not being treated fairly, which can make them jealous and stop caring about their jobs.

This broadens existing concepts of transformative and ethical leadership by emphasising the significance of impartiality and transparency as fundamental leadership attributes.

By doing this, the study shows that leadership models need to more clearly include how employee emotions affect the results of an organisation.

The results also add to the larger conversation about organisational culture and climate.

Favouritism and jealousy, while experienced individually, can manifest at the collective level, impacting team cohesion, collaboration, and the overall psychological climate of the workplace.

This positions jealousy not alone as an emotional response but also as a diagnostic indicator of inherent structural or cultural disparities within organisations.

By situating jealousy within the larger context of workplace culture, the study enriches a systems-level comprehension of organisational behaviour, encouraging subsequent studies to explore how cultural norms, values, and climates either exacerbate or mitigate the impacts of favouritism.

The findings of this study have implications not only for organisational practices but also for lawmakers and HR regulators.

Favouritism and the jealousy it produces are not simply difficulties for managers; they are also problems for workers that hurt their health, keep them from staying at their jobs, and lower their productivity.

Policymakers need to make sure that all businesses have clear rules for promotions, assessments, and rewards.

People will also be more accountable if there are official ways for workers to report favouritism or unfair treatment without fear of getting in trouble.

HR regulatory authorities can also help make sure that the regulations at work are fair and easy to understand.

For example, they can say that performance reviews and giving out prizes should be examined on a regular basis to make sure the regulations are being followed.

Policymakers can help businesses improve their workplaces healthier, fairer, and more sustainable by making fairness and openness a part of employment legislation.

This would not only cut down on jealousy-related withdrawal, but it would also make the workplace healthier, fairer, and more long-lasting.

11.

Constraints and prospective avenues for investigation This study provides substantial insights into the emotional and behavioural consequences of perceived favouritism in the workplace; yet, it has limitations.

The study utilised a cross-sectional design, restricting the capacity to determine causal correlations among the variables.

While notable relationships were identified, longitudinal or experimental investigations could offer a more comprehensive insight into the evolution of favouritism and jealousy and their impact on withdrawal behaviour.

Secondly, the research depended on self-reported data, which may be vulnerable to social desirability bias or common method variance.

Future study may employ multi-source data, such as peer or supervisor assessments, to corroborate findings and mitigate potential bias.

Another problem is the sample setting, which might have just included India.

Because workplace dynamics vary across cultures and sectors, future research should aim to replicate this model in many situations to enhance generalisability.

This study focused on workplace envy as a mediator; however, alternative emotional or psychological mechanisms—such as emotional fatigue, organisational cynicism, or perceived injustice—may also function as mediators or moderators.

Examining these variables may refine the conceptual framework and facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of employee behaviour.

Finally, subsequent studies could gain from investigating individual-level moderators, including emotional intelligence, resilience, or coping mechanisms, to discern traits that may mitigate the adverse impacts of favoritism and jealousy on employee outcomes.

Future studies may examine the effects of technical and structural modifications in mitigating the repercussions of favouritism and jealousy.

The increasing implementation of AI and data-driven HR systems facilitates the establishment of more objective performance evaluation and promotion methods, hence mitigating the sense of bias.

Comparative analyses across sectors—such as healthcare, IT, or education—may potentially uncover industry-specific trends in how favouritism influences employee emotions and behaviours.

Additionally, investigating team-level dynamics, including the dissemination of envy within groups and its impact on collective performance, will enhance comprehension beyond the individual level.

Longitudinal and cross-cultural research employing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies will not only rectify the deficiencies of the existing design but also yield a more profound, contextualised understanding of the evolution of favouritism, jealousy, and withdrawal across temporal and cultural dimensions.

8.1 Suggested Model Employee 1 Manager Employee 2 Figure 3 FJW Model When a manager consistently favors Employee 1 through praise, opportunities, or support, other team members, likeEmployee 2 may perceive this as unjust or inequitable.

This perception of unequal treatment sets the foundation for a negative emotional response.

Supported by: Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) According to Equity Theory, individuals compare their input-output ratio with that of others in the workplace.

When Employee 2 sees Employee 1 receiving greater rewards for what seems like equal or lesser effort, they perceive inequity, which leads to psychological tension and emotional discomfort This perception of unfair advantage fosters jealousy in Employee 2 toward Employee 1.

Jealousy is an affective response triggered when individuals feel that something desirable, such as recognition, belonging, or status, is being given to someone else at their own expense.

Supported by: Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954).

Festinger argued that individuals evaluate their own status and success by comparing themselves to others.

The perceived favoritism makes Employee 2 feel inferior or excluded, triggering upward social comparison and resulting in jealousy.

Supported by: Affective Events Theory (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996).

This theory posits that workplace events (like a manager favoring a colleague) trigger emotional reactions (like jealousy), which then influence employee attitudes and behavior.

Instead of directly confronting the manager or favored employee, Employee 2 may choose to cope by emotionally or behaviorally disengaging from work.

This can manifest as reduced motivation, absenteeism, presenteeism, or psychological detachment.

Supported by: Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) This theory suggests that individuals aim to protect their emotional and cognitive resources.

If jealousy creates emotional strain, withdrawal becomes a self-protective strategy to conserve remaining psychological energy.

Supported by: Affective Events Theory, per this framework, negative emotions like jealousy lead to behavioral consequences—such as withdrawal, which serves as a passive reaction to negative emotional experiences in the workplace.

While favoritism is often assumed to benefit the recipient, being favored can backfire if it causes a social identity threat condition, where individuals fear being judged, excluded, or resented based on their perceived social position rather than their actual performance.If Employee 1 becomes aware that others view them as the manager's favorite, they may start feeling isolated or targeted by peers.They might fear being seen as undeserving, especially if they didn't actively seek the favoritism.This can lead to guilt, discomfort, or anxiety, prompting them to withdraw to avoid workplace tension, peer conflict, or scrutiny.

Supported by: Social Identity Threat Theory posits that individuals withdraw or underperform when they believe their social group status (in this case, being “the favorite”) places them in a vulnerable or devalued position.

References Adams, J.

(1965).

Inequity in social exchange.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2 Adams, J.

(1965).

Inequity in social exchange.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.

Davis, M.

(2016).

Empathy: A social psychological approach.

Routledge.

Duffy, M.

K., Scott, K.

L., Shaw, J.

D., Tepper, B.

J., & Aquino, K.

(2012).

A social context model of envy and social undermining.

Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0804 Erdogan, B., & Liden, R.

(2006).

Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader–member exchange and ingratiation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.365 Exline, J.

J., & Lobel, M.

(1999).

The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison.

Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.307 Festinger, L.

(1954).

A theory of social comparison processes.

Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 Festinger, L.

(1954).

A theory of social comparison processes.

Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.

(1981).

Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Gao, F., Mokhtarian, P.

L., & Johnston, R.

(2014).

Nonnormality of data in structural equation models: An empirical study of model estimation.

Transportation Research Record, 2430(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.3141/2430-10 Hanisch, K.

A., & Hulin, C.

(1991).

General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39(1), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(91)90005-W Hayes, A.

(2009).

Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.

Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360 Hobfoll, S.

(1989).

Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Hobfoll, S.

(1989).

Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

Hom, P.

W., Lee, T.

W., Shaw, J.

D., & Hausknecht, J.

(2017).

One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000042 Jawahar, I.

(2007).

The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions.

Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-007-9014-1 Jöreskog, K.

G., Sörbom, D., du Toit, S., & du Toit, M.

(2006).

LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.).

Scientific Software International.

Kanten, S., & Ülker, F.

(2013).

The effect of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior: A study in the hospitality industry.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(13), 159–167.

Khan, M.

M., Quratulain, S., & Bell, C.

(2021).

Supervisor favoritism and subordinates’ reactions: The role of workplace friendship.

European Management Journal, 39(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.03.003 Kline, R.

(2005).

Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).

Guilford Press.

Knyazev, G.

G., Savostyanov, A.

N., & Levin, E.

(2020).

Personality, jealousy, and work stress.

Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109877 Lee, K., & Duffy, M.

(2019).

Psychological entitlement: Construct explication and relations to interpersonal deviance in the workplace.

Journal of Management, 45(2), 525–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316673749 Lehman, W.

K., & Simpson, D.

(1992).

Employee substance use and on-the-job behaviors.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.309 Meier, L.

L., & Spector, P.

(2013).

Reciprocal effects of work stressors and counterproductive work behavior: A five-wave longitudinal study.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031732 Nunnally, J.

(1978).

Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).

McGraw-Hill.

Ogunfowora, B., Bourdage, J.

S., & Nguyen, B.

(2013).

Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.

Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113497590 Petriglieri, J.

(2011).

Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities.

Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0087 Scott, B.

A., Colquitt, J.

A., & Paddock, E.

(2014).

An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034453 Smith, R.

H., & Kim, S.

(2007).

Comprehending envy.

Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46 Steele, C.

(1997).

A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.

American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.

Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R.

(2005).

The contagious leader: impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes.

Journal of applied psychology, 90(2), 295.

Tepper, B.

(2000).

Consequences of abusive supervision.

Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375 Tepper, B.

J., Henle, C.

A., Lambert, L.

S., Giacalone, R.

A., & Duffy, M.

(2011).

Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022465 Vecchio, R.

(2005).

Explorations in employee envy: Feeling envious and feeling envied.

Cognition and Emotion, 19(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000148 Weiss, H.

M., & Cropanzano, R.

(1996).

Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.