Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are customized work arrangements that employees negotiate with their employer. Despite the burgeoning growth, i-deals research is primarily focused on the benefits to the recipients without sufficiently considering how differences in i-deals across group members can have implications at the group and individual levels. To better guide the nascent literature, we (a) conceptualize content, quantity, and magnitude as the three key bases upon which i-deals can differ; (b) explain why content of i-deals can reflect social or economic exchange; and (c) define relative i-deals, that is, how individual group members’ i-deals compare to coworkers, and group i-deals differentiation, that is, the degree of variability in team member i-deals, in actual and perceptual terms. In our multilevel theory development of differences in i-deals, we offer propositions on (a) effects of perceived relative i-deals on outcomes at the individual level, (b) effects of actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation on outcomes at the group level, and (c) perceived group i-deals differentiation as a moderator of the effects of perceived relative i-deals at the individual level. Lastly, we conclude with managerial implications and future directions for research.
AmbroseM. L.SeabrightM. A.SchminkeM. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00037-7
2.
AnandS.HuJ.VidyarthiP.LidenR. C. (2018). Leader-member exchange as a linking pin in the idiosyncratic deals - Performance relationship in workgroups. Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.005
3.
AnandS.VidyarthiP. (2016). Idiosyncratic Deals in the Context of Workgroups. In BalP. M.RousseauD. M. (eds), Idiosyncratic deals between employees and organizations: Conceptual issues, applications, and the role of co-workers. Routledge.
4.
AnandS.VidyarthiP.LidenR. C.RousseauD. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 970–988. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533176
5.
BalP. M.BoehmS. A. (2019). How do i-deals influence client satisfaction? The role of exhaustion, collective commitment, and age diversity. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1461–1487. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206317710722
6.
BalP. M.De JongS. B.JansenP. G. W.BakkerA. B. (2012). Motivating employees to work beyond retirement: A multi-level study of the role of i-deals and unit climate. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 306–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01026.x
7.
BrownD. J.FerrisD. L.HellerD.KeepingL. M. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.003
8.
ChanD. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
9.
CorcoranK.CrusiusJ.MussweilerT. (2011). Social comparison: Motives, standards, and mechanisms. In ChadeeD. (Ed.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 119–139). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
10.
CrusiusJ.CorcoranK.MussweilerT. (2022). Social comparison: A review of theory, research, and applications. In ChadeeD. (ed.), Theories in social psychology (2nd ed.). Wiley.
11.
DansereauF.GraenG.HagaW.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
12.
DeckopJ. R.CirkaC. C.AnderssonL. M. (2003). Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026060419167
13.
DuffyM. K.GansterD. C.PagonM. (2002). Social Undermining in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069350
14.
EdwardsJ. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029
EdwardsJ. R.ParryM. E. (1993). On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations as an Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational Research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.5465/256822
17.
EisenbergN.EggumN. D. (2009). Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In DecetyJ.IckesW. (eds), The social neuroscience of empathy; the social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 71–83). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
GerberJ. P.WheelerL.SulsJ. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
20.
GoodmanP. S.HaisleyE. (2007). Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.005
21.
GreenbergJ.Ashton-JamesC. E.AshkanasyN. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.006
22.
GreenbergJ.RobergeM. E.HoV. T.RousseauD. (2004). “Fairness in Idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an I-deal”. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23(15), 1–34.
23.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. (ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
HochschildA. R. (1997). Time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Henry Holt.
25.
HofstedeG. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3
26.
HornungS.RousseauD. M.GlaserJ. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.655
27.
HornungS.RousseauD. M.GlaserJ.AngererP.WeiglM. (2010). Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.625
28.
HornungS.RousseauD. M.WeiglM.MuellerA.GlaserJ. (2014). Redesigning work through idiosyncratic deals. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 608–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.740171
29.
HorwitzS. K.HorwitzI. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206307308587
30.
KahnW. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
31.
KleinK. J.DansereauF.HallR. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195–229. https://doi.org/10.2307/258703
32.
KongD. T.HoV. T.GargS. (2020). Employee and coworker idiosyncratic deals: Implications for emotional exhaustion and deviant behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4033-9
33.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In SchmittN. W.HighhouseS.WeinerI. B. (eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). A Multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
LaiL.RousseauD. M.ChangK. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Coworkers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013506
36.
LangeJ.WeidmanA. C.CrusiusJ. (2018). The painful duality of envy: Evidence for an integrative theory and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and schadenfreude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 572–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000118
LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
39.
LeventhalG. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 92.
40.
LiaoC.WayneS.J.RousseauD.M. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals in contemporary organizations: A qualitative and meta-analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S9–S29. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1959
41.
LidenR. C.WayneS. J.LiaoC.MeuserJ. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
42.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
43.
MarescauxE.De WinneS.RofcaninY. (2021). Co-worker reactions to i-deals through the lens of social comparison: The role of fairness and emotions. Human Relations, 74(3), 329–353.
44.
MarescauxE.De WinneS.SelsL. (2019). Idiosyncratic deals from a distributive justice perspective: Examining co-workers’ voice behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3400-7
45.
MarksM.MathieuJ.ZaccaroS. (2001). A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
46.
MathieuJ. E.HollenbeckJ. R.van KnippenbergD.IlgenD. R. (2017). A century of work groups in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
47.
MathieuJ.MaynardM. T.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
48.
NaumannS.BennettN. (2000). A Case for Procedural Justice Climate: Development and Test of a Multilevel Model. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 881–889. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556416
49.
NgT.W.H. (2017). Can idiosyncratic deals promote perceptions of competitive climate, felt ostracism, and turnover?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.004
O’NeillT. A.AllenN. J.HastingsS. E. (2013). Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of Team Conflict: A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573
52.
PodsakoffP.MackenzieS.B.PaineJ.B.BachrachD.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014920630002600307
53.
QiaoY.ZhangZ.JiaM. (2021). Their pain, our pleasure: How and when peer abusive supervision leads to third parties’ schadenfreude and work engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(4), 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04315-4
54.
RehS.TrösterC.Van QuaquebekeN. (2018). Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000281
55.
RicoR.Sánchez-ManzanaresM.GilF.GibsonC. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 183–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159381
56.
RobinsonS. L.O’ReillyJ.WangW. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39(1), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206312466141
57.
RosenC. C.SlaterD. J.ChangC.JohnsonR. E. (2013). Let’s make a deal: Development and validation of the ex post i-deals scale. Journal of Management, 39, 709–742. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206310394865
RousseauD. (2005). Coworkers: The I-deal’s Most Interested Third Parties. In, I-deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Bargain for Themselves (pp. 151–178). Routledge.
60.
RousseauD. M.HoV. T.GreenbergJ. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977–994. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527470
61.
RousseauD. M.HornungS.KimT. G. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Testing propositions on timing, content, and the employment relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 338–348.
62.
RousseauD. M.KimT. G. (2006). When workers bargain for themselves: Idiosyncratic deals and the nature of the employment relationship. In Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference. Belfast, Ireland.
ShoreL. M.Coyle-ShapiroJ.ChenX.TetrickL. E. (2009). Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 289–302.
65.
SmithR.H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In SulsJ.WheelerL. (eds), Handbook of Social Comparison (pp. 173–200). Boston, MA: Springer.
66.
SmithR. H.InskoC. A. (1987). social comparison choice during ability evaluation: The effects of comparison publicity, performance feedback, and self-esteem. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167287131011
67.
SmithR. H.PowellC. A. J.CombsD. J. Y.SchurtzD. R. (2009). Exploring the When and Why of Schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00181.x
68.
TekleabA. G.QuigleyN. R.TeslukP. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331218
69.
TesserA. (1986). Some effects of self-evaluation maintenance on cognition and action. In, Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 435–464). Guilford Press.
70.
van de VenN.ZeelenbergM.PietersR. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419–429. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015669
71.
VidyarthiP. R.SinghS.ErdoganB.ChaudhryA.PosthumaR.AnandS. (2016). Individual deals within teams: Investigating the role of relative i-deals for employee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1536–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000145
72.
WaymentH. A.SilverR. C.KemenyM. E. (1995). Spared at random: Survivor reactions in the gay community. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01590.x
WoodJ. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.231
75.
XuH.WayneS. J.MichelE. J. (2020). The Dysfunctional and Functional Impact of I-Deals Differentiation on Team Performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 20851.
76.
ZellE.AlickeM. D. (2010). The Local Dominance Effect in Self-Evaluation: Evidence and Explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 14(4), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366144
