IGNACIO ÁLVAREZ THOMAS AREQUIPA

The specific strengths and weaknesses of each study have been discussed in their corresponding chapters. This section focuses on general methodological strengths and weaknesses.

Quantitative methods have been used to address the research questions of this thesis. As such, an implicit aim has been to contribute to research on HR differentiation by adopting a rigorous design for each study. A first strength is the deployment of an advanced research design for the study of i-deals. In designing this research, it was important to determine whether a cross-sectional or longitudinal design would be better to tackle the research questions, to define the time frame and operationalization of the variables, and to include third parties, such as managers. Each of these points is discussed below.

First, disentangling i-deals and exploring their differential effects on employee outcomes requires a longitudinal design. However, i-deals research appears to have been dominated by cross-sectional designs (Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2015). In order to disentangle i-deals and explore the mechanisms through which negotiation of i-deals relates to work performance in the long term, Studies 1 and 2 adopted a longitudinal design, separated by six months.

Second, it was necessary to decide on an appropriate time frame for the longitudinal design. Specifically, determining an appropriate interval between waves one and two was not a straightforward task, particularly since previous research on i-deals offers no clear indication. Adopting a similar approach to that of research on psychological contracts (Ng & Feldman, 2008), an interval of six months was chosen, during which the effects of negotiated i-deals on performance outcomes could be observed. This time frame has also been suggested to be appropriate for research using working-student samples (Demerouti, Bakker & Halbesleben, 2014).

Third, this study utilized data from other sources, namely managers’ evaluations of their own emotions concerning employees’ i-deals (Study 1) and subordinates’

common method bias, and to add to the rigour of previous studies, which have not

integrated managers’ ratings into i-deals research. Beyond the methodological

contribution, the inclusion of managers’ emotions about employees’ i-deal negotiations emphasizes the role of managers in facilitating the attainment of i-deals. Moreover, the use of managers’ evaluations of employees’ work

performance enhances objectivity in the evaluation of work performance concerning i-deals.

In terms of the analytical approach, this thesis adopted the strongest methods possible to test the hypotheses. Before the fieldwork for Studies 1 and 2 commenced, the content of items was discussed with full-time faculty members. A pilot test involving PhD students was then carried out to detect any problems in relation to comprehension of the survey items. Following these suggestions, the final surveys were adjusted and back-translated (Prieto, 1992). To evaluate the content validity of scales, various confirmatory factor analyses were carried out for all studies. Since Study 3 used an existing, cross-sectional dataset, various statistical tests were conducted to rule out common method bias. The collaborative efforts of the WERS team, as discussed in Study 3, ensured strict rigour and minimized common method bias as far as possible.

Study 3 also adopted an innovative approach to testing the effects of normativeness of flexitime. In particular, a normativeness index was calculated using a macro code, which calculated the prevalence of flexitime across workplaces where there was differentiation. Extending most recent research (Gajendran, Harrison & Delaney-Klinger, 2014), this study is believed to be the

first to rely either on managers’ reports concerning the prevalence of flexi- location or on co-workers’ reports (Golden, 2007).

Because of the nested structure of data in all three studies, in testing for associations, multilevel regression analyses using MlwiN were carried out to eliminate problems that might arise from interdependence (Hox, 2002; Nezlek, 2001; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Controlling for critical variables across all three studies also strengthened the findings.

6.4 Practical Implications

The studies presented in this thesis have important practical implications. Organizations are increasingly using differentiated HR practices to attract and retain employees (Call, Nyberg & Thatcher, 2015), and employees are becoming more concerned about their unique work needs (Michaels, Handfield-Jones & Axelrod, 2001). The findings therefore offer important practical guidelines for managers and HR departments.

A first practical implication emerging from Studies 1 and 2 is that managers and HR departments must acknowledge that negotiation for and attainment of differentiated HR practices are separate. What is negotiated may not be obtained, and procedures on how to manage both steps effectively, as well as training managers to deliver what is promised, should be a focus in organizations.

This thesis offers evidence that it is not the negotiation of i-deals but their attainment that relates to enhanced work performance in the long term. Hence, i-deals might be used as strategic HRM tools by managers and HR departments to

drive employees’ work performance. It should be noted that different types of i-deal may influence different types of employee outcome. Hence, in deciding which type of i-deal to provide, managers and HR departments should take into account the needs of employees. With regard to the provision of i-deals, managers might examine employees’ behaviours following i-deal negotiations for cues regarding their intentions in seeking and using these i-deals.

In addition to the potential benefits to the recipients of individualized HRM practices, an important implication concerns employees who are excluded from differentiated HR practices, especially in work contexts where others are entitled to them. As revealed in Study 3, non-entitlement to flexitime negatively

influences employees’ affective commitment, both directly and through their fairness perceptions. Moreover, social context plays an important role, influencing and shaping the degree to which non-entitled employees perceive their treatment to be unfair, reflected in lower affective commitment. An important way to tackle this undesirable result is to provide explicit guidelines and conduct open communications with employees regarding why they are not entitled to flexitime while others in the same workplace are, as reflected in normativeness of flexitime.

Related research (Den Hartog et al., 2013) has found that managers’

communication is crucial in this process, and procedures, guidelines and open communications by managers may help reduce grievances among employees who are unentitled to flexitime.