Uncovering Missing Voices: Invisible Aspects of Idiosyncratic Deals (I-Deals)

To provide context for this special issue’s eight articles, we review the lenses adopted in i-deals research and its findings and then address under-studied aspects of i-deals. Part of the societal trend toward customization of employment arrangements, the i-deals workers negotiate for themselves are the subject of a growing body of research. We observe that i-deals research investigates both antecedents and consequences of i-deals at levels from the individual and dyad to team and organization. Numerous theories have been applied to explain i-deal phenomena beginning with social exchange theory in its initial research to social comparison and diverse theories regarding human needs and values. Employers are known to use i-deals to attract, motivate, and retain workers, while employees pursue i-deals to better their work lives and career opportunities. Although the positive effects of i-deals for organizations and i-dealers alike are well-documented, potential negative effects are under-studied. Moreover, white collar workers in developed countries are the recurrent focus in i-deals research to the neglect of other occupations and societies. In this article and special issue, we seek insights regarding understudied aspects of i-deals to deepen investigation into their myriad manifestations and effects.

Factors Affecting Request & Receipt of I-deals: An Investigation in the Context of Older Workers

I-deals are a key method for organizations to retain and motivate employees, yet little research has investigated employee motivations for seeking i-deals and antecedents to request and receipt. We examine these largely invisible antecedents of i-deals in the context of older workers, a cohort of increasing importance in the workplace. Through thematic analysis of 82 in-depth interviews with Australian workers over the age of 50, we develop a model of i-deal emergence that delineates the motivation, request, and receipt stages of i-deals. We identified four motivational influences to seek i-deals: to improve work–life balance, to repair psychological contract breach, and to craft satisfactory retirement pathways; high levels of existing job-role autonomy acted as a demotivator to request i-deals. We also identified three factors associated with an i-deal request being granted: an older worker’s value to the organization, positive employee–manager relationships, and emphasis of mutual benefit for employee and employer. We identified a novel antecedent for i-deals: feasibility—an older worker’s perception of how likely they are to be successful when requesting a desired i-deal. Feasibility perceptions are informed by organizational practices and policies around i-deals, co-worker i-deal experiences, and job-role constraints. Feasibility can influence an employee’s decisions to request an i-deal and also directly affect attitudes toward the employer, regardless of whether an i-deal is present, desired, or otherwise. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed and future directions outlined.

Making Flexibility More I-Deal: Advancing Work-Life Equality Collectively

Current research on negotiated individualized flexible work arrangements focuses on highly paid, skilled professional workers. We refer to this as “flexibility through privilege,” the ability to obtain “flexibility I-deals,” due to high labor market power. Yet as work-life tensions grow across occupations globally, most individuals need increased access to flexibility. As the COVID-19 pandemic illuminated, work-life equality, the ability of workers to have equal access to, opportunity to use, and benefit from flexible working arrangements is a rising form of job inequality. We examine how existing flexibility i-deals can be reconceptualized more broadly to include collectively bargained arrangements across many occupations, and flexible working forms. Our essay advances understanding by (1) broadening notions of the typical employee and occupation involved; (2) expanding negotiation processes beyond an organizational sphere of control; (3) identifying new forms of negotiated flexibility such as control over work-life boundaries and technological availability; and (4) addressing not only employer-employee mutual benefits, but larger societal interests concurrent with new tensions and unintended consequences of mainstreamed implementation. We propose the term “collective flexibility” as the collective right of workers to customize their work schedule, place, workload, boundaries, connectivity, and employment mode with their employer and other stakeholders to benefit employers, employees, and society. We offer a future research agenda. Expanding how we frame and study what a flexibility i-deal is with a collective approach regarding how they are accessed, negotiated, maintained, and who they serve may enhance their potential as a lever for social change to advance economic, social, and health employment rights.

The Implications of Market-Based Versus Supportive Idiosyncratic Deal Pathways

This article contributes to the idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) literature by explicating and theorizing market-based and supportive i-deal pathways. In so doing, it enhances understanding of how i-deals are negotiated, addresses gaps in theoretical understanding about how outcomes emerge and reconciles divergent narratives regarding the availability of i-deals to stars or a broader pool of employees. To achieve this, the study explores the inputs, process, and outcomes of flexibility and financial i-deal creation using a qualitative approach. It addresses a deficit in multi-stakeholder i-deals research, drawing on 42 semi-structured interviews with employees, line managers and HR representatives in a financial service and a construction company. Findings detail how market-based i-deals are premised on economic exchange. They respond to employer needs to secure star performers, while employee needs may be flexibility or financially focused. The negotiation of market-based i-deals is distributive, and their creation is perceived by employees as special treatment to which they are entitled, leading to purely functional benefits for organizations (e.g., recruitment/retention). In contrast, supportive i-deals are relational, responding to employee needs for flexibility and employer needs to build high-quality employment relationships. Their negotiation is integrative. Perceived by employees as a reflection of being valued, supportive i-deals lead to broader reciprocation. Researchers and practitioners should consider the implications of these pathways. In particular, the article emphasizes the broad benefits of supportive i-deals but serves to manage expectations regarding the potential limitations of market-based i-deals, that may lead to functional benefits (e.g., recruitment/retention) but not positive attitudes and behaviors.

Do Multiple I-Deals in a Team Help or Hinder Team Outcomes? A Resource Scarcity Perspective

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated and agreed upon by individual employees and their organization. This study addresses an emerging conundrum in i-deals research—whether the prevalence of i-deals in teams helps or hinders team outcomes. Because teams in which i-deals are prevalent receive more resources and status, they may be more cohesive and engage in more supportive behaviors. On the other hand, because i-deals differentiate among team members, teams in which i-deals are prevalent may be less cohesive and less inclined to engage in OCB. To solve this puzzle, we draw from a resource scarcity perspective to posit that understanding intra-team i-deal dynamics requires taking into account both organizational-level (i.e., organizational i-deal scarcity) and team-level (i.e., team power structure) factors. Using data from 40 organizations, 166 teams, and 1016 employees, we disentangle the complex interplay among the prevalence of i-deals in a team, organizational i-deal scarcity, and intra-team power structure in predicting both team cohesion and intra-team OCB.

Ticket to Ride: I-deals as a Strategic HR Tool for an Employable Work Force

We describe how idiosyncratic deals (I-deals), in this case I-deals focused on workers’ employability enhancement, can serve as a powerful strategic HR tool for simultaneously meeting both the strategic goals of employers and the career goals of employees. Building on a sustainable career perspective, I-deals are interpreted as highly valuable, as they can help individual employees to more easily adapt to the fast-changing environments that nowadays characterize society and the labor market. After theoretical outlines on the concepts of I-deals and employability, we argue that I-deals can form the basis for integrative employment relationships aimed at employability enhancement. This article concludes with concrete recommendations for practice, indicating that in order to enable the sound use of I-deals as a strategic HR tool, organizations should discuss I-deals and employability openly through constructive dialogue. Moreover, examples for achieving this through specific practices, such as working with employability coaches and world cafés on employability, are described.

Investigating the effect of idiosyncratic deals in Asian countries: A cross cultural analysis in Singapore, Thailand and Japan

The purpose of this study is to empirically compare and contrast the relationship between several dimensions of idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) and employee affective commitment among Asian countries. Data were collected from 909 employees in Singapore, Thailand and Japan. Results of the study show that there is a positive relationship between several i-deals and affective commitment. However, the effect size of i-deals on each dimension varies across the three countries. In particular, the effect size of task and work responsibilities i-deals on the affective commitment of Japanese employees is stronger than that of Thai employees. Simultaneously, the effect size of the i-deals on affective commitment of Singaporean employees is weaker than that of Thai employees. On the contrary, for the dimensions of schedule and location flexibility and financial incentives, the effect size of i-deals on affective commitment is weaker for Singaporean than for Japanese and Thai, and the effect sizes for Japanese and Thai are the same. The results of this study question the traditionally and universally naive conclusion that i-deals are effective. Although i-deals result in, to some extent, some positive consequences, the results of the study suggest that not in all cases do they increase employee affective commitment. Empirical evidence of the study also demonstrate that the effects i-deals had on employee affective commitment are inconsistent even across cultures with close cultural origin.