The strengths of this study include the use of a two-wave research design and data from multiple sources. However, it also has some limitations. Although data were collected at two measurement points and ratings obtained from supervisors, no causal relationships could be established between the study’s variables. Longitudinal designs are needed to strengthen the causal claims of this research stream.
A second limitation relates to the assumption that managers evaluate employees’
socially connecting (versus disconnecting) behaviours to establish whether these behaviours are congruent with the managers’ goals in honouring i-deals and, as a result, feel positively (versus negatively) about the process of employees’ most
recent i-deal negotiations. However, the study did not test explicitly whether the goals of employees in requesting i-deals were the same as those of managers. Future studies might investigate more directly the congruence between managers’ and employees’ goals in i-deals processes.
Measurement of managers’ emotions captured their emotional reactions to the
process of employees’ most recent i-deal negotiations. However, the theorization was built on the assumption that managers react positively (versus negatively) to the socially connecting and disconnecting behaviours of employees following their most recent i-deal negotiations. Other factors beyond focal employees’
socially connecting and disconnecting behaviours, such as budget constraints in the work team, may influence managers’ emotions in the negotiation process. Future research might remedy this limitation by explicitly measuring managers’
While the focus of this study was on employees’ socially connecting and
disconnecting behaviours directed at their co-workers, as discussed above, managers may prioritize their own interests in facilitating the attainment of i-deals. Research on flexible work arrangements has shown that managers tend to act in their own interests when agreeing on alternative work arrangements (Powell
& Mainiero, 1999) and attribute employees’ use of FWPs to their own self- interests (e.g. Leslie et al., 2012). Since i-deals are individually negotiated with managers, future research might explore whether managers prioritize the interests of the team or their own interests, and the conditions under which managers are likely to make unfavourable attributions of employees’ use of i-deals.
The idea that managers observe employees’ socially connecting and disconnecting behaviours suggests that some employees may engage in impression management behaviours to influence their managers. To rule out this possibility, post hoc analysis controlled for employees’ impression management motives in testing the
association between employees’ behaviours and managers’ emotions (H2 and
H3). The results reveal that managers’ emotions about the process of employees’
most recent i-deal negotiations were not significantly influenced by employees’
impression management motives.6 Future research might evaluate whether co-
workers’ reactions to focal employees’ obtained i-deals may be influenced by the latter’s impression management motives.
In this study, participants may have worked in different work teams but reported to the same manager, as in a matrix organizational structure. Whether or not they work in the same work team but report to the same manager is important because this structural work condition influences their task interdependence with other co- workers, and hence imposes limitations on the manager regarding the provision of i-deals to focal employees (Hornung, Rousseau & Glaser, 2009). Future research should take into account the impact of such structural work conditions (e.g. task interdependence, working in the same work team or not) on the association between the negotiation and attainment of i-deals.
6 The impression management motives of employees were measured at Time 1, using Rioux and Penner’s (2001) 11-item scale. Detailed results are available from the first author on request.
The focus of this study is on the association between the extent of successful negotiation and attainment of i-deals. However, what is successfully negotiated may not actually be obtained, leading to perceptions of breaches of i-deals. Future research might integrate a psychological contract perspective and explore what factors hamper the attainment of successfully negotiated i-deals, as well as the effects of breaches of i-deals on employees’ work behaviours and attitudes.
The research participants in this study were managers. Due to their knowledge, experience and expertise, they were likely to be better equipped than their non- managerial counterparts to negotiate for and obtain i-deals. Previous research has suggested that i-deals are only negotiated by star performers (Rousseau & Kim, 2006). Given the general decrease in collective agreements (Glassner & Keune, 2012), and to enhance the generalizability of the findings, future studies should explore i-deals with non-managerial employees.
This research has focused on the aftermath of i-deal negotiations. Future research might explore the behaviours of employees following the attainment of i-deals, in terms of whether employees share the benefits with team members or keep the benefits to themselves. In this respect, future research might integrate the role of co-workers and explore whether and how a focal employee’s obtained i-deals benefit or harm co-workers in a work team. This would add clarity to the conceptualization of i-deals as intended to be beneficial to teams (Rousseau, Ho & Greenberg, 2006).
This study has focused specifically on task and work responsibility i-deals. Because the nature of flexibility i-deals is different from that of task and work responsibility i-deals (Rosen et al., 2013), these findings cannot be generalized to all types of i-deal. Future studies should explore different theoretical mechanisms to test and explain the unique effects of flexibility i-deals and differentiate them from task and work responsibility i-deals.
Finally, this study was conducted in a Turkish business context where paternalism is a dominant cultural value (Aycan et al., 2013). Paternalism refers to hierarchical relationships in which managers are expected to care for, protect and guide their subordinates in their work and non-work lives (Aycan et al., 2013). In
managers and negotiating for specific work arrangements such as i-deals. Future research might explore the effects of different cultural values on the negotiation and attainment of i-deals.