Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29, NO. 4, pp. 260—273, 2001 2001 Elsevier Science, Inc. www.organizational -dynamics.com ISSN 0090-2616/01 frontmatter
Treating Employees Differently: The Outcomes of Idiosyncratic Deals (I‐DEALS) Many HR professionals focus on developing or implementing policies and procedures that ensure that employees are treated in the same way or behave similarly in performing aspects of their job.
Heterogeneous: At least some of the specific terms included in an i-deal are specially provided to that individual, differing from conditions created for other employees in similar positions or in the same work group.
Individually negotiated: An i-deal exists when an individual worker negotiates arrangements with an employer or prospective employer that differ from the corresponding arrangements of his or her coworkers.
Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals for short) are personalized employment conditions individual workers have negotiated, which could be used as a tool to manage talent resource. Since the concept was put forward by Rousseau (2001), many related researches about I-deals were carried out by scholars. On the basis of the previous literatures, this article reviews on i-deals’ concept, features, contents and the theoretical basis involved in the i-deals, and then sorts out the latest researches from the perspective of both the i-deals’ recipients and the co-workers, exploring the positive and negative dual effects of idiosyncratic deals. We expect this paper could advance the understanding of i-deals and help us manage talent resource more effectively.
I-deals theory was initially grounded in social exchange theory (Rousseau et al., 2006). The central tenet of social exchange theory is that individuals tend to reciprocate contributions and favors with partners in a relationship, even when not otherwise required to do so (Blau, 1964). The effects of idiosyncratic deals can be best understood from the perspective of social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity (Hornung et al., 2009). According to the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), employees who have successfully negotiated idiosyncratic deals may feel obligated to repay employers who granted the deals as well as coworkers and organizations. For example, when employees receive flexible idiosyncratic deals, their coworkers may take on increased workloads; likewise, if employees receive developmental idiosyncratic deals, their coworkers may miss out on career development opportunities because of limited budgets. Recipients of idiosyncratic deals, therefore, may feel the need to help their coworkers or extend extra effort in the workplace to ‘keep the peace’ or mitigate jealousy (Huo et al., 2014).
(2013) identified four different potential co-worker reactions to i-deals which are driven by perceptions of an i-deal’s distributive injustice. The most common reaction is voice, followed by counteraction, withholding effort and requesting a compensation. This suggests that when i-deals are considered distributively unjust, co-workers react in ways that will make the i-deal less effective or ineffective. Xiong et al. (2018) also confirmed that there was a positive correlation between the others’ i-deals and the withdrawal behavior of employees, and psychological contract violation played a part of the intermediary role.
First, others’ i-deals can do good for both the co-workers and i-dealers through the emotions of benign envy. Benign envy lacks hostility and resentment but includes the determination to improve oneself, be like the envied person, and pull oneself up to his/her level, which is why it directly increases effort and performance as a primary way to achieve higher outcomes (Bamberger & Belogolovsky, 2017; Lange et al., 2018; Van de Ven, 2017). Benign envy can motivate interpersonal behaviors (e.g. helping the envied other) to advance oneself (Van de Ven et al., 2009). This indirectly increases co-workers’ outcomes, as supervisors can interpret them assigns of motivation and commitment (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Moreover, getting close to the envied person can help the employee learn how to achieve higher outcomes (Lee & Duffy, 2019). Marescaux et al. (2019a) also proposed that benign envy of the co-workers leads to positive behaviors, both toward the organization and i-dealer.
I-deals are “voluntary, personalized agreements of a non-standard nature negotiated between individual employees and their employers regarding terms that benefit each party ” (Rousseau et al., 2006: p. 978). Four defining features of i-deals are noteworthy (Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau et al., 2006). First, individually negotiated. Employees bargain for personalized arrangements individually, although either the individual or the employer can initiate an i-deal (Liao et al., 2016). Second, heterogeneous. At least some of the terms of an i-deal are specially provided to that individual, differing from conditions created for other employees in similar positions or in the same workgroup (Rousseau et al., 2006). This results in within-group heterogeneity (Klein et al., 1994). Third, benefiting both employer and employee. I-deals by virtue of being negotiated between employees and their employers are intended to benefit them both. The successful result of an i-deal is that an organization attracts, motivates, or retains the services of a valued employee, who, in turn, receives desired resources from that organization. Fourth, varied in scope. The i-deals individuals enjoy vary in scope, from a single idiosyncratic element in a larger standardized employment package to a completely idiosyncratic employment arrangement.
From the perspective of organizational justice, some scholars also confirmed that witnessing others’ i-deals contributed to coworkers’ helping behaviors. Coworker’s perceptions of others’ idiosyncratic deals can be the manifestation of organizational informational justice and interactional justice (Huo et al., 2014), this perception can drive them to be more active in participating in OCB-I to achieve their expectations of obtaining i-deals (Huo et al., 2014). It is worth noting that if co-workers receive the i-deals which is at the similar level to others’ i-deals, they will feel a stronger sense of organizational justice, which could improve their career satisfaction and show more extra-role behaviors (Liao et al., 2017).
2) Developmental i-deals refer to customized opportunities to develop individual skills and competencies and meet personal aspirations for professional or career advancement (e.g. challenging work assignments, individual recognition of performance, special training, career opportunities);
In response to receiving an i-deal, an employee usually is more emotionally committed to the job and will go above and beyond in trying to help the company. Though this relationship between idiosyncratic deals and work outcomes is relatively well understood, what is less known is exactly why i-deals lead to positive work outcomes.
Offering i-deals to employees may make them feel valued and more committed to the organization. In addition, i-deals that are related to flexible work schedules or arrangements may help employees stay happy and productive, especially when they have family or other outside obligations.
Heterogeneous: At least some of the specific terms included in an i-deal are specially provided to that individual, differing from conditions created for other employees in similar positions or in the same work group.
Individually negotiated: An i-deal exists when an individual worker negotiates arrangements with an employer or prospective employer that differ from the corresponding arrangements of his or her coworkers.