Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Grant I-Deals? Supervisors’ Prior I-Deals, Exchange Ideology, and Justice Sensitivity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supervisors often have knowledge of their subordinates’ characteristics, needs, and performance and thus play an important role in the authorization and implementation of idiosyncratic deals (I-deals). By adopting a supervisor-based perspective of I-deals and using the logic of appropriateness in decision-making as the theoretical framework, the study examines managers’ motives for authorizing I-deals. Specifically, we argue that supervisors are more likely to grant I-deals when they have received I-deals themselves in the past and that this relationship is moderated by supervisors’ exchange ideology. We also propose that supervisors will be less likely to authorize I-deals when they have low or high levels (compared to moderate levels) of justice sensitivity. Results from 182 supervisor-subordinate dyads from various organizations suggest a positive and linear relationship between supervisors’ I-deals and subordinates’ I-deals and a moderation effect of exchange ideology. Furthermore, results show an inverted U-shaped relationship between supervisors’ justice sensitivity and subordinates’ I-deals. This research expands our understanding of factors affecting supervisors’ decision making on I-deals authorization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Exchange ideology is different from other related constructs such as equity sensitivity (Huseman et al. 1987) psychopathy (Chiaburu et al. 2013) or sharing in the workplace (Lin 2007). For example, while equity sensitivity refers to individuals’ overall tolerance for (in)equity, exchange ideology focuses on the degree to which individuals’ work efforts depend on their expectations in the employee-organization relationships (Scott and Colquitt 2007).

  2. We thank the Action Editor for pointing this out.

  3. The supervisors were given a choice to name one or more of their subordinates; thus, of the final sample of 148 supervisors, 25 had two or more subordinates in the sample.

  4. We thank the review team for this suggestion.

  5. We also ran measurement invariance tests of the I-deals scales for supervisors and subordinates. The results of these analyses are presented in the supplemental materials submitted for review.

  6. The CFAs of the single dimensions of I-deals showed acceptable fit for task and work responsibility I-deals (6 items) and financial I-deals (5 items). Scheduling I-deals (3 items) showed perfect fit, and Location I-deals scale (2 items) was unspecified due to a small number (2) of items.

  7. This form of parceling was used since the aim of the study was to evaluate the global effects of I-deals, rather than its dimension-specific effects (Little et al. 2013).

  8. In this approach, items are assigned to indicators based on the factor loadings in the exploratory factor analysis: the items with the highest factor loading is assigned to the first indicator, the second highest to the next indicator, and continue until all items are assigned to each indicator.

  9. We ran a post hoc test of the interaction effect of supervisor gender X subordinate gender on subordinate’s I-deals and did not find any significant result. We thank the review team for this suggestion, which may be important in the future for practical and legal purposes.

  10. We also repeated this test using the more traditional inclusion of linear and quadratic terms in sequential steps (using standard linear and quadratic terms), and we found similar results.

  11. We thank the review team for this idea of future research.

References

  • Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1490–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor-quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 970–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bal, P. M., & Boehm, S. A. (2017). How do i-deals influence client satisfaction? The role of exhaustion, collective commitment, and age diversity. Journal of Management, 0149206317710722.

  • Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., Staubach, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). Justice sensitivity and the processing of justice-related information. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 386–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach: Trickle-down effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1578–1607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310378366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., Muñoz, G. J., & Gardner, R. G. (2013). How to spot a careerist early on: Psychopathy and exchange ideology as predictors of careerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < 0.05). American psychologist, 49, 997–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Zipay, K. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). The psychological contract and individual differences: The role of exchange and creditor ideologies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 150–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro-and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 999–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 161–178.

  • Greenberg, J., Roberge, M.-É., Ho, V. T., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Fairness in idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an i-deal. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 1-34): Emerald Group publishing limited.

  • Heitjan, D. F., & Basu, S. (1996). Distinguishing "missing at random" and "missing completely at random". The American Statistician, 50(3), 207–213. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2684656. https://doi.org/10.2307/2684656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiekkataipale, M.-M., & Lämsä, A.-M. (2017). What should a manager like me do in a situation like this? Strategies for handling ethical problems from the viewpoint of the logic of appropriateness. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 457–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, V. T., & Tekleab, A. G. (2016). A model of idiosyncratic deal-making and attitudinal outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 642–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Issues in multilevel research: Theory development, measurement, and analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 247–274). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2009). Why supervisors make idiosyncratic deals: Antecedents and outcomes of i-deals from a managerial perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 738–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2011). Employee-oriented leadership and quality of working life: Mediating roles of idiosyncratic deals. Psychological Reports, 108(1), 59–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Coworkers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Las Heras, M., Van der Heijden, B. I., De Jong, J., & Rofcanin, Y. (2017). “Handle with care”: The mediating role of schedule i-deals in the relationship between supervisors' own caregiving responsibilities and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Chaudhry, A., Tekleab, G., & A. (2014). An interactionist perspective on employee performance as a response to psychological contract breach. Personnel Review, 43(6), 861–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C. (2014). Enhancing individual and group performance through idiosyncratic deals: A social cognitive investigation. Unpublished Dissertation: University of Illinois - Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C., Wayne, S. J., & Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals in contemporary organizations: A qualitative and meta-analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1).

  • Liao, C., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Meuser, J. D. (2017). Idiosyncratic deals and individual effectiveness: The moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 438–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., & Wu, L.-Z. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 832–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., Luksyte, A., Zhou, L., Shi, J., & Wang, M. (2015). Overqualification and counterproductive work behaviors: Examining a moderated mediation model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 250–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The logic of appropriateness. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees' and customers' perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications (pp. 11–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mohiyeddini, C., & Schmitt, M. J. (1997). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to unfair treatment in a laboratory situation. Social Justice Research, 10(3), 333–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molm, L. D., Peterson, G., & Takahashi, N. (2003). In the eye of the beholder: Procedural justice in social exchange. American Sociological Review, 128–152.

  • Ng, T. W. (2017). Can idiosyncratic deals promote perceptions of competitive climate, felt ostracism, and turnover? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 118–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Can you get a better deal elsewhere? The effects of psychological contract replicability on organizational commitment over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 268–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Idiosyncratic deals and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41(3), 893–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Crucial trends and issues in strategic decision making. Handbook of decision making, 3–29.

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1): Sage.

  • Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2005). Exchange ideology and member-union relationships: An evaluation of moderation effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C. D., Tomek, S., & Schumacker, R. (2013). Tests of moderation effects: Difference in simple slopes versus the interaction term. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 39(1), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. C., Slater, D. J., Chang, C.-H., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Let’s make a deal: Development and validation of the ex post i-deals scale. Journal of Management, 39(3), 709–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness? Organizational Dynamics.

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals, idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Armonk: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Tomprou, M., & Simosi, M. (2016). Negotiating flexible and fair idiosyncratic deals (i-deals). Organizational Dynamics, 3(45), 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. J., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 8(4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. J., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 290–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of “hot” and “cold” motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1571–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 444–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, S., & Martin, G. (2014). People management rationales and organizational effectiveness: The case of organizational trust repair. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrova, O., Schlösser, T., & Baumert, A. (2014). Life satisfaction and job-seeking behavior of the unemployed: The effect of individual differences in justice sensitivity. Applied Psychology, 63(4), 643–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Wong, K. F. E. (2011). Social influence of a coworker: A test of the effect of employee and coworker exchange ideologies on employees’ exchange qualities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates' procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 97–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. M. (2019). Individuals matter, but the situation’s the thing: The case for a habitual situational lens in leadership and organizational decision-making. Organizational Dynamics In Press.

  • Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, L. A. (1992). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the relationships between importance of participation in decision making and job attitudes. Human Relations, 45(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xing, Y., & Liu, Y. (2015). Poetry and leadership in light of ambiguity and logic of appropriateness. Management and Organization Review, 11(4), 763–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Administración, Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 257, Torre 26, Oficina 1004, 8330015, Santiago, Chile

    Lyonel Laulié

  2. Mike Ilitch School of Business, Wayne State University, 2771 Woodward Ave, Suite 475, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Amanuel G. Tekleab

  3. College of Business, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 137 Fairlane Center South, 19000 Hubbard Drive, Dearborn, MI, 48126, USA

    Junghyun (Jessie) Lee

Authors
  1. Lyonel Laulié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanuel G. Tekleab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Junghyun (Jessie) Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyonel Laulié.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laulié, L., Tekleab, A.G. & Lee, J.(. Why Grant I-Deals? Supervisors’ Prior I-Deals, Exchange Ideology, and Justice Sensitivity. J Bus Psychol 36, 17–31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09670-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09670-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation