Idiosyncratic deals and work‐to‐family conflict and enrichment: The mediating roles of fit perceptions and efficacy beliefs

• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Author: John Lawler,Xiang Yao,Shuhong Wang,Peng Wang,I‐Chieh Hsu
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12246

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Idiosyncratic deals and work-to-family conflict and

enrichment: The mediating roles of fit perceptions

and efficacy beliefs

Peng Wang

1

| Shuhong Wang

2

| Xiang Yao

3

| I-Chieh Hsu

4

|

John Lawler

5

1

Department of Management, Farmer School

of Business, Miami University, USA

2

Department of Management, College of

Business and Economics, Radford

University, USA

3

School of Psychological and Cognitive

Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of

Behavior and Mental Health, Peking

University, China

4

Graduate Institute of Human Resource

Management, National Changhua University

of Education, Taiwan, ROC

5

School of Labor and Employment Relations,

University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, USA

Correspondence

Peng Wang, Department of Management,

Farmer School of Business, Miami University,

Oxford, OH 45056, USA.

Email: wangp@miamioh.edu

Xiang Yao, School of Psychological and

Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key

Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health,

Peking University, China.

Email: xiangyao@pku.edu.cn

Abstract

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), which involve personalised

work arrangements negotiated between employees and

their managers, offer a promising approach to accommodat-

ing the demands of a diverse workforce. In contrast with

the traditional social exchange theory perspective, we inte-

grate the theories of person–environment fit and self-

efficacy to examine the effect of flexibility i-deals on both

work-to-family conflict and enrichment. We specifically

consider two mediating mechanisms: needs–supplies (N-S)

fit and family-role efficacy. Results from two Chinese sam-

ples reveal that supervisor-rated flexibility i-deals relate

positively with employees' family-role efficacy and N-S fit.

These, in turn, relate to work-to-family conflict negatively

and to work-to-family enrichment positively. Monte Carlo

bootstrapping analyses confirm the indirect effects of N-S

fit and family-role efficacy. By using an alternative theoreti-

cal perspective, we add to our understanding of the mecha-

nisms underlying the i-deals effect. This study expands

existing i-deals research to an empirically underrepresented

area: work–family enrichment. Our findings also confirm

the work–family benefits of i-deals and strengthen man-

agers' confidence regarding the merits of implementing i-

deals in the workplace.

Received: 17 April 2017 Revised: 5 April 2019 Accepted: 17 May 2019

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12246

600 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:600–619.

KEYWORDS

family-role efficacy, flexibility, idiosyncratic deals, needs–supplies

fit, work-to-family conflict, work-to-family enrichment

1|INTRODUCTION

The demands of an increasingly diverse workforce drive the need for customised employment arrangements

(Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009). Traditionally, organisations offer company-wide, standardised workplace flexibil-

ity policies to attract and retain valuable human resources. These one-size-fits-all approaches do not always meet

the individual employees' needs to effectively reduce their work–family conflict (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley,

2013). As collective workplace bargaining declines, the employees' anticipation surrounding negotiated personalised

work arrangements also increases (Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016). Customised work arrangements are costly and

complex; therefore, organisations may shy away from this approach, and employees cannot avail themselves of these

practices without evidence of their advantages (Heras, Rofcanin, Bal, & Stollberger, 2017).

Idiosyncratic deals (I-deals) are special employment terms negotiated between individual workers and their

employers to meet the needs of both sides (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). The negotiation of i-deals is initiated

by individual employees and ranges between one idiosyncratic employment condition and an entire customised job

(Rousseau et al., 2006). I-deals involve flexibility surrounding personalised work schedules and locations (Rousseau,

2005; Rousseau & Kim, 2006). For example, one employee may negotiate to telecommute 2 days a week, whereas

another attempts to arrange a 1-hour late-start schedule once a week. Although i-deals are relatively nascent in

practice, Rousseau et al. (2006) have begun to define relevant theoretical constructs that foster empirical research

surrounding this phenomenon. Although subsequent research demonstrates myriad benefits of i-deals, including

increased job satisfaction, organisational commitment, citizenship behaviours, and postretirement work intention

(e.g., Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010; Bal, De Jong, Jansen, & Bakker, 2012), how this approach integrates

with employees' work and family lives remains unclear.

We examine how i-deals influence both the negative and the positive sides of work–family interaction, namely,

work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment. Work-to-family conflict refers to work activities interfering

with family participation, such as when employees' excessive job demands make it difficult to engage in

family activities (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work-to-family enrichment occurs when work experience enhances

family performance (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), such as when an employee feels respected at work and,

consequently, can energetically and attentively focus on family members' needs at home. The effect of i-deals on

work-to-family enrichment is rarely explored, and the relations between i-deals and work-to-family conflict have only

received limited research attention (e.g., Hornung, Glaser, Rousseau, Angerer, & Weigl, 2011; Hornung, Rousseau, &

Glaser, 2008, 2009).

The current understanding of the explanatory mechanisms underlying i-deals is somewhat fundamentally con-

strained. The predominant theoretical foundation in i-deals research involves social exchange theory, and this

assumes that employees reciprocate i-deals via positive work attitudes and behaviours that benefit employers (Ho &

Kong, 2015). However, Liao et al. (2016, p. 14) argue that social exchange theory has limited explanatory power

because i-deals “may not always generate reciprocity,”which is the central premise of social exchange theory.

Because work–family balance potentially benefits employees more than employers, we argue that the social

exchange perspective may not fully illuminate how i-deals facilitate work–family integration. This leads us to con-

sider an alternative mechanism to explain the effect of i-deals on work–family interaction.

To this end, we adopt person–environment fit theory (P-E fit; Caplan & van Harrison, 1993) to bridge the under-

standing of i-deals and work–family balance. One similar theoretical perspective is work adjustment theory (Dawis &

WANG ET AL.601