In EDS ansehen

I‐Deals for Some Employees May (Not) Be Ideal for the Team: Positive and Negative Relationships Between I‐Deals Differentiation and Team Effectiveness.

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: I‐Deals for Some Employees May (Not) Be Ideal for the Team: Positive and Negative Relationships Between I‐Deals Differentiation and Team Effectiveness.
Autoren: Xu, Haoying (Howie)1 (AUTHOR), Wayne, Sandy J.2 (AUTHOR), Michel, Eric J.3 (AUTHOR), Pan, Jingzhou4 (AUTHOR) painepjz@sina.com
Quelle: Human Resource Management. Sep2025, p1. 21p. 3 Illustrations.
Schlagwörter: *INDUSTRIAL relations, *PERSONNEL management, *FLEXIBLE work arrangements, SOCIAL groups
Abstract: ABSTRACT Reflecting a more balanced employer–employee relationship in which employees have latitude to shape aspects of their employment, idiosyncratic deals (i‐deals) are voluntary, personalized, nonstandard agreements that employees negotiate with their employers. In teams, i‐deals differentiation (i‐dealsD), the extent to which the degree of these arrangements varies across members, is a key form of HR differentiation. While research has largely emphasized its negative effects, we propose that the impact of i‐dealsD on team effectiveness depends on the type of i‐deals. We focus on career, flexibility, and task i‐deals, the most common types of i‐deals that employees across different jobs can negotiate with their manager. Drawing on social comparison theory, we argue that career and flexibility i‐dealsD relate positively to team relationship conflict, and in turn associate with lower customer‐related outcomes. In contrast, task i‐dealsD relate negatively to team relationship conflict, and subsequently associate positively with customer‐related outcomes. We test our model in two samples: a field study with three‐source data collected from 59 stores of a national restaurant chain located in the United States (Study 1) and a field study with two‐source data collected from 108 teams from three service companies located in China (Study 2). Across both studies, flexibility i‐dealsD and task i‐dealsD had a negative and a positive association, respectively, with team customer‐related outcomes via team relationship conflict, while career i‐dealsD was unrelated to our outcomes of interest. We advance the literatures on i‐deals and HR differentiation, and offer practical insights into the implementation of i‐dealsD in teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Human Resource Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Datenbank: Business Source Index
Beschreibung
Abstract:ABSTRACT Reflecting a more balanced employer–employee relationship in which employees have latitude to shape aspects of their employment, idiosyncratic deals (i‐deals) are voluntary, personalized, nonstandard agreements that employees negotiate with their employers. In teams, i‐deals differentiation (i‐dealsD), the extent to which the degree of these arrangements varies across members, is a key form of HR differentiation. While research has largely emphasized its negative effects, we propose that the impact of i‐dealsD on team effectiveness depends on the type of i‐deals. We focus on career, flexibility, and task i‐deals, the most common types of i‐deals that employees across different jobs can negotiate with their manager. Drawing on social comparison theory, we argue that career and flexibility i‐dealsD relate positively to team relationship conflict, and in turn associate with lower customer‐related outcomes. In contrast, task i‐dealsD relate negatively to team relationship conflict, and subsequently associate positively with customer‐related outcomes. We test our model in two samples: a field study with three‐source data collected from 59 stores of a national restaurant chain located in the United States (Study 1) and a field study with two‐source data collected from 108 teams from three service companies located in China (Study 2). Across both studies, flexibility i‐dealsD and task i‐dealsD had a negative and a positive association, respectively, with team customer‐related outcomes via team relationship conflict, while career i‐dealsD was unrelated to our outcomes of interest. We advance the literatures on i‐deals and HR differentiation, and offer practical insights into the implementation of i‐dealsD in teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00904848
DOI:10.1002/hrm.70022