The authors extend i-deals theory to an individual-within-a-team context. Drawing upon social comparison theory, they contend that individuals will react to their own i-deals within the context of group members' i-deals. Therefore, they examine the role of relative i-deals (an individual's i-deals relative to the team's average) in relation to employee performance. Furthermore, integrating social comparison theory with social identity theory the authors assert that the behavioral outcomes of relative i-deals are influenced by the team's social and structural attributes of team orientation and task interdependence. Finally, they contend that the perceptions of one's relative standing with the leader, or leader-member exchange social comparison (LMXSC), mediate the i-deals-outcome relationship in groups with low team orientation and task interdependence. Results of multilevel modeling using time-lagged data from 321 employees nested in 46 teams demonstrated that the positive relationship between relative i-deals and employee performance was stronger in groups with low team orientation and task interdependence, and the mediation effect of LMXSC was stronger in teams with low rather than high team orientation. (PsycINFO Database Record

Extending work–family conflict research, we draw on role theory and conservation of resources theory to propose a moderated-mediation model of the relationship between family interference with work, job stress, agreeableness and employee attitudes. We examined the moderating effect of employee agreeableness on the relationship between family interference with work and job and life satisfaction mediated by job stress. Hypotheses were tested in a sample of 756 employees from 15 industries. Results showed a negative association between family interference with work and job satisfaction and life satisfaction through perceived job stress. Further, this mediated relationship was moderated by employee agreeableness, such that job stress and decrease in job and life satisfaction were perceived only by employees low in agreeableness.

Work-related negotiations between the employee and the employer that result in personalized agreements of nonstandard nature, based on individual employee needs and preferences, are termed as idiosyncratic deals (i-deals; Rousseau, 2005). These personalized work agreements were available for star performers in the past; however, their popularity is increasing because ideals are cost-effective alternatives to traditional ways of motivating and rewarding employees (Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009). Ideals include flexible work arrangements in the form of individualized work schedules, flextime, working from home arrangements, as well as developmental opportunities such as training to enhance skills needed for the job (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006) and ideals also include arrangements to modify job duties (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010). The interested parties in relation to the ideals negotiation process are the focal employee (i-dealer), the manager/ leader, and the coworkers (Greenberg, Roberge, Ho, & Rousseau, 2004). The managers act as negotiators of ideals for the organization. While granting ideals , they may use it as a reward, motivator, or simply to help employees develop/ improve their skills. Ideals represent an important agreement between the employee and the employer, which justifies the use of social exchange theory to explain ideals to outcomes relationships (e.g.,

No abstract

No abstract