Differences in I-Deals Within Groups: A Multilevel Approach

Idiosyncratic Deals: A Brief Review and Conceptual Extension

Idiosyncratic deals or i-deals are personalized work arrangements negotiated between employees and their employers (Greenberg et al., 2004, p. 3). Central to i-deals are five key features: (1) individual negotiation, (2) some degree of within-group heterogeneity, (3) are mutually beneficial to employee and employer, (4) can vary in scope, and (5) can occur between prospective or current employees and their employers (Greenberg et al., 2004; Rousseau et al., 2006). I-deals are not like favoritism since i-deals should have legitimate benefits for the recipient and organization (Rousseau et al., 2006). Although i-deals are often negotiated with leaders, i-deals as customized work arrangements are distinct from leader–member exchange (LMX), the quality of the exchange relationship with one’s leader (Dansereau et al., 1975). Research has shown that i-deals and LMX can be mutually influential, with i-deals being shown as an antecedent of LMX (e.g., Liao et al., 2016) while LMX also contributing to the development of i-deals (e.g., Hornung, Rousseau, et al., 2010; Hornung et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 2013). Some research suggests that even workers with poor leader relationships receive i-deals (Anand et al., 2010), providing further evidence indicating the distinction between these two constructs.

Because of their personalized nature, i-deals can take on many different forms of content in a work group. In the current article, we follow the content dimensionality based on Rosen and colleagues’ (2013) rigorous scale development work. Extending prior work on content of i-deals (e.g., Rousseau & Kim, 2006), Rosen et al. concluded that there are four most critical content domains of i-deals: task and work responsibilities, schedule flexibility, location flexibility, and financial incentives. They retained Rousseau and Kim’s (2006) previously theorized dimensions of schedule flexibility (flexibility with schedule and work hours) while collapsing developmental and workload i-deals into task and work responsibilities (negotiation of what workers do) because of their considerable overlap. In addition, they introduced location flexibility (negotiation of work location) and financial incentives (negotiation of compensation) as new content domains of i-deals.

While i-deals have been examined as an overall construct, the importance of understanding this construct at the content dimension level has also received scholarly attention. This is mainly because i-deals can be differentially associated with economic or social exchange depending on the content domain (e.g., Liao et al., 2016; Rousseau et al., 2006; 2009). According to Rousseau et al. (2009, p. 339), recipients of i-deals with a social exchange nature “construe a supportive relationship based on broad mutual contributions, trust, and voluntary reciprocity,” while i-deals of economic exchange nature tend to contribute to “beliefs in employment as an impersonal market-based transaction, which is limited in time and scope to a specified exchange of material resources for job performance.” Indeed, on the one hand, some i-deals directly alter the input–output ratio of an employment relationship and, therefore, reflect economic exchange. On the other hand, i-deals that are supportive for the long-term development of employees’ personal and career development reflect social exchange. For example, in their study of a sample of hospital employees, Rousseau et al. (2009) concluded that i-deals regarding work hours are considered as economic exchange, while developmental i-deals are indicative of social exchange. Following this logic, we discuss the implications of Rosen et al.’s four types of i-deals on exchange relationships. It is clear that task and work responsibility i-deals reflect a strong social exchange relationship with one’s employer, while financial incentive i-deals as the most economically oriented. The role of schedule and location flexibility i-deals is less clear. Although prior research has suggested that schedule flexibility may not be viewed as unique and special as developmental ideals (Hornung et al., 2008; Ng & Feldman, 2015), we argue that allowing flexibility in terms of schedule and location for employees does show the employer’s support for and trust in employees, which reflect social exchange. In sum, work and responsibilities, schedule flexibility, and location flexibility i-deals are of social exchange nature, while financial incentive i-deals reflect economic exchange. We contend that whether i-deals reflecting a social or economic exchange is key to understanding the effect of differences of i-deals within a group.

Proposition 1

The content of i-deals can reflect different forms of exchange between employee and employer, with task and work responsibilities, schedule flexibility, and location flexibility i-deals contributing more to social exchange, while financial incentives contributing more to economic exchange.

I-deals in Workgroups: How Do Differences Occur?

I-deals—as differential work arrangements—recognize the talents and needs of an ever more individualized workforce while offering competitive advantages like retention and recruitment to employers (Rousseau et al., 2006). One caveat is that heterogeneity or differences in i-deals between coworkers could be perceived as a source of injustice (Greenberg et al., 2004), making it pivotal to understand how differences in i-deals operate in group settings. While turning the i-deals literature to a promising direction, the nascent research on differences in i-deals (Kong et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2009; Ng, 2017) has not been guided by a coherent conceptualization, leading to two major issues. First, there has been a predominant focus on investigating differences in i-deals based on quantity (Lai et al., 2009; Vidyarthi et al., 2016). Despite insights from this perspective, theorizing that i-deals between coworkers differ only in quantity overlooks possible differences in the “size” or “content” of i-deals. Second, there tends to be a misalignment between theory and operationalization of differences in i-deals. This issue regards whether the examination of objective or subjective differences is the more compatible with perceptual theories like social comparison theory (e.g., Vidyarthi et al., 2016). Addressing these issues, we argue that there are three primary dimensions for differences in i-deals: a) content, b) quantity, and c) magnitude. We then put forth that these types of differences can manifest as both actual and perceived.

Three Dimensions of Differences in I-deals: Content, Quantity, and Magnitude

First, content differences describe differences in types of i-deals held, whereby group members may have differential ownership of specific i-deals (i.e., schedule flexibility, task and work responsibilities, location flexibility, and financial incentives). For example, within a group of three members, content differences in i-deals can occur when worker A has a flexible work schedule, worker B has a special task assignment, while worker C has a financial incentive i-deal. In such a case, although each group member has one i-deal, there are differences in the content of their deals. On the contrary, there is no difference in i-deals content if every group member has the same type of i-deals.

Second, quantity differences describe the degree of variability or differences in the number of i-deals that are distributed to group members. For example, if within the same work group, worker A has three i-deals while worker B has none, then we conclude that there are differences in i-deals in terms of quantity. In contrast, groups where members enjoy the same or a similar number of i-deals have no or low differentiation in quantity. In the current literature, most of the understanding in differences in i-deals is based on quantity differences.

Third, magnitude differences refer to differences in the extent of customization to work arrangements brought about by i-deals (aka, the “size” of an i-deal). Indeed, some i-deals may involve substantial change to the existing terms of a contract, while others only require a slight modification. Thus, workers in the same work group may have i-deals that differ in magnitude. For example, Greenberg and colleagues (2004) reference Hochschild’s (1997) account of a manager who allowed a highly valuable employee (worker A) to take a year off to travel the world in pursuit of their interest in underwater photography. In such a case, the employee was granted an i-deal with a substantial modification to their work arrangement. On the other hand, workers B and C may receive an i-deal that can be as minor as changing their work schedule from 8–5 to 9–6 or working from home 2 days a month. In this case, although each member of the group has an i-deal, differences exist as there is a substantial difference in the magnitude of these deals. Table 1 presents a summary of the three dimensions on which i-deals can differ.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Dimensions of differences in i-deals.

	Quantity	Content	Magnitude
Definition	Difference in the number of i-deals held	Difference in ownership of a type of i-deal (e.g., schedule, task, location, and financial)	Difference in the extent of modification to a work arrangement derived from an i-deal (i.e., the size of an i-deal)
Example: Relative i-deals	Worker A has three i-deals and compares them to worker B who has one	Worker A has a flexible schedule and compares to worker B who has a financial i-deal	Worker A works remotely indefinitely and compares to worker B who can work remotely for a month
Example: Group i-deals differentiation	Worker A has four i-deals, worker B has two, and worker C has none	Worker A has a flexible work schedule, worker B has a task i-deal, and worker C has a financial i-deal	Worker A can work remotely once a week, worker B can work remotely 3 days a week, and worker C can work remotely 2 days a week

Proposition

2a. I-deals within a group can differ in terms of three dimensions: quantity, content, and magnitude.

Relations Between Types of Differences in I-deals

Content, quantity, and magnitude differences coexist and contribute to overall i-deals differences. For example, imagine we have a situation where worker A has two i-deals, a location flexibility i-deal and a substantial task and work responsibilities i-deal, allowing them to work from home on tasks that are customized to fulfill their needs, but worker B only has one flexibility i-deal that slightly modifies the work schedule. In this case, we have observed a content difference (i.e., location flexibility and task i-deals for worker A vs. a schedule flexibility i-deal for worker B), a quantity difference (i.e., two i-deals for worker A and one i-deal for worker B), and a magnitude difference (i.e., i-deals involving substantial changes to worker A’s arrangement vs. an i-deal with a slight schedule adjustment for worker B). The overall differences in i-deals between worker A and worker B add up as their i-deals differ in all possible aspects including content, quantity, and magnitude. With this in mind, we first argue for an additive effect of content, quantity, and magnitude differences in i-deals and follow with a discussion on the dominant role of content differences. Finally, we illustrate an example of the theoretical precision that can be gained by considering all three difference dimensions.

First, the more aspects of differences (i.e., content, quantity, and magnitude) that are present, the stronger the effect of differences in i-deals is. That is, content, quantity, and magnitude differences may have additive effects on attitudes, affect, and behaviors such that the effect is the sum of i-deal differences. Assuming there are content differences between members’ i-deals within a group, the overall differences in i-deals should increase with the existence of another type of difference (e.g., quantity or magnitude). This is likely to be the case because each additional type of difference tends to make overall differences more salient. As a comparison, such additive effects exist in the justice literature (Ambrose et al., 2002) where the additive effect of interactive, procedural, and distributive injustice has been demonstrated to (a) increase the severity of sabotage with each additional type and (b) be blind to different combinations of injustice (interactive effects). As such, with each additional difference in i-deals included, the salience of overall differences in i-deals becomes stronger within a group.

Proposition

2b. Differences in i-deals within a group have an additive effect that is strongest when i-deals differ in all three dimensions (i.e., content, quantity, and magnitude).

Second, we stress the key role of content differences in determining the direction of the effect of differences in i-deals. Indeed, the content of an i-deal can impact whether differences in i-deals are seen as fair or not (Marescaux et al., 2019). In addition, the social comparison literature suggests that the object of any comparison should be relevant to an individual (Smith, 2000; Wood, 1989), which means the content of i-deals should first be meaningful to group members for the perceived differences to have an impact. We submit that content differences determine the direction of the effect of differences in i-deals (positive or negative) for two reasons. First, because the content of i-deals may reflect either a social or economic exchange (Liao et al., 2016; Rousseau et al., 2006, 2009), it is reasonable to expect that differences in i-deals may have meanings that are distinct depending on content. Second, research has confirmed that outcomes of social exchange differ from those of economic exchange (Lai et al., 2009). That is, workers are likely to understand that certain i-deals represent long-term employee–employer relationships while others are largely based on the employer’s calculated transaction for employees’ skills and contributions. Overall, social exchanges differ from economic exchanges primarily in the “resources exchanged, type and strength of obligations, reciprocity and the quality of the relationship that develops over time” (Shore et al., 2009, p. 290). Thus, differences in i-deals reflecting social versus economic exchange will likely have different effects.

While content differences might determine the nature of the impact differences in i-deals have within the group, we believe that quantity and magnitude differences influence the strength of the effect. Also note that when the most relevant content difference is chosen, then quantity and magnitude differences should also reflect that content difference to account for all differences in that type of i-deal. For example, if differences in financial i-deals (a content difference) are the most relevant in a particular context then one should account for differences in the quantity of financial i-deals as well as differences in the magnitude of financial i-deals.

Proposition

2c. Content differences are more likely to determine the direction of the effect of overall differences in i-deals, while quantity and magnitude differences primarily determine the strength of the effect.

Differences in I-deals at the Individual and Group Levels

Actual Versus Perceived Differences in I-deals

Rousseau (2001, p. 263) mentions that i-deals are “often like an iceberg, most of which is invisible below the waterline.” Following this logic, information regarding differences with coworkers’ i-deals is likely to be incomplete and perceptual (beliefs) rather than complete and reflecting actual (true) differences. While perceived differences in i-deals can be the result of actual differences, they become distorted for a variety of information degrading factors like (a) i-deals secrecy by both recipients and allocators intending to avoid conflict in the group (withholding information on i-deals held) (Leventhal, 1976; Rousseau, 2001), (b) the visibility of the i-deal/s others have (e.g., being granted remote work is more noticeable than a financial incentive i-deal), and (c) immediacy or closeness to peers (e.g., the work group sharing an open office vs. individual offices) (Greenberg et al., 2007). Because of these factors, actual differences in i-deals may not be fully perceived by individuals or the group (Kong et al., 2020; Ng, 2017). The potential discrepancy between actual and perceptual differences in i-deals highlights the importance of understanding how each may have an impact within a group. Although preliminary effort in investigating differences in i-deals has been insightful, no sufficient consideration has been given to the distinction between actual and perceptual differences in i-deals. Thus, in the current section, we clarify relative i-deals and group i-deals differentiation by attending to the pivotal contrast between actual (objective) or perceived (subjective) differences (see Figure 1 for a summary).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Actual and perceived differences in i-deals.

Actual and Perceived Relative I-deals

Vidyarthi and colleagues (2016) first examined relative i-deals and defined it as the “relative standing of the individual with respect to i-deals within the group” (Vidyarthi et al., 2016, p. 1538). They grounded relative i-deals in Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory, which posits that individuals tend to compare aspects of themselves to those around them. Since i-deals can signal how much a team member is valued by their leader or organization, they are a salient resource that can trigger social comparisons (Rousseau et al., 2006). Despite Vidyarthi and colleagues’ pioneer work, there is a misalignment between the conceptualization and operationalization of relative i-deals. Specifically, differences in i-deals can be objective and actual or subjective and perceived. Vidyarthi and colleagues’ (2016) empirical investigation of relative i-deals should be considered as an examination of actual relative i-deals, with relative i-deals calculated as a difference score between the focal individual and the group average, while their theoretical focus of relative i-deals as a comparison object reflects perceived relative i-deals. To guide more precise theoretical and empirical effort, we define actual relative i-deals as the relative and objective standing in i-deals between a worker and a referent target from the same work group. In contrast, perceived relative i-deals refer to a focal worker’s perception of how different their i-deals are in relation to the comparison referent. Because the saliency of i-deals within a group is subject to the influence of its secrecy, visibility, and immediacy, actual and perceived relative i-deals may not equal each other. As i-deals are negotiated in the open, made visible to the group, created in an environment where members share physical closeness, we should expect actual and perceptual relative i-deals to more likely to converge. Therefore, we propose the following.

Proposition

3a. Relative i-deals can be actual or perceptual.

Proposition

3b. Actual and perceived relative i-deals do not necessarily equal each other.

Proposition

3c. The extent to which actual relative i-deals serve as the basis for perceived relative i-deals largely depends on i-deal secrecy, visibility, and immediacy. Perceived relative i-deals best indicate actual relative i-deals when there is low secrecy, high visibility, and strong immediacy.

Perceived Relative I-deals: Referent Choice and Type of Comparison

Inherent to the concept of perceptual relative i-deals is social comparison because one needs to have a comparison referent to derive a perceived relative standing. Considering such a social comparison process, we seek further understanding of perceived relative i-deals by illustrating (a) with whom do workers compare their i-deals and (b) what kinds of comparisons can be made.

With respect to the comparison referent, Vidyarthi and colleagues (2016) argued for the group unit (average of all coworkers) or the average coworker (an individual) as the optimal referent for i-deal comparison. In addition to their focus on the group average, comparisons with better-off or worse-off individual referents are just as, if not more, naturally occurring because they take less mental effort than abstract representations like an average (Zell & Alicke, 2010). To better reflect reality, referent choices can be narrowed by considering the assumed motive for comparing i-deals: self-improvement, self-enhancement/self-protection, or self-evaluation (Wood, 1989). When individuals are motivated to improve or advance in status, upward comparisons with a referent that is better-off can occur because a better-off coworker could set a personal standard in i-deals or a roadmap for emulation (Corcoran et al., 2011). When individuals are not always interested in accurate comparisons and instead seek comparisons to self-enhance/self-protect, downward comparisons with a worse-off coworker take place (Crusius et al., 2022). Finally, an average coworker or the group average may serve as a referent when comparers are not yet aware of their status and are interested in gaining such knowledge (self-evaluation; Wood, 1989). Therefore, we suggest that motive for comparison may impact choice of referents, which determines perceived relative i-deals.

Proposition

4a. Workers can determine their relative status in i-deals by comparing to the overall group average or a specific coworker.

Proposition

4b. When workers are driven by a self-improvement motive, they are more likely to compare i-deals with a better-off coworker, leading to an upward comparison of i-deals.

Proposition

4c. When workers are driven by a self-enhancement/self-protection motive, they are more likely to compare with a worse-off coworker, leading to a downward comparison of i-deals.

Proposition

4d. When workers are driven by a self-evaluation motive, they compare i-deals with an average coworker or the group average, leading to either an upward or downward comparison of i-deals.

Actual and Perceived Group I-deals Differentiation

Just as relative i-deals help to understand differences in i-deals at the individual level, differences of i-deals can be understood as a group-level phenomenon that reflects within-group differences (Greenberg et al., 2004; Klein et al., 1994). Anand and Vidyarthi (2016) coined the term i-deals differentiation to refer to within-group heterogeneity, or variability, of i-deals distributed in a group. High group i-deals differentiation indicates a larger extent to which i-deals are unevenly distributed within a group, while groups with low i-deals differentiation are more likely to have uniform i-deals where there are few differences between all members in the group (Anand & Vidyarthi, 2016). However, the current conceptualization does not consider the role of actual or perceived differences, making the conceptualization of group i-deals differentiation ambiguous. As such, with an emphasis on objectivity, level of analysis, and types of differences, we define actual group i-deals differentiation as the degree of objective differences in i-deals within a work group. In contrast, we define perceived group i-deals differentiation as the degree of subjective differences in i-deals within a work group, as collectively perceived by the work group. Like the difference between actual and perceived relative i-deals, we expect i-deal secrecy, visibility, and immediacy to influence the convergence between actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation.

Proposition

5a. Group i-deals differentiation can be actual or perceptual.

Proposition

5b. Actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation do not necessarily equal each other.

Proposition

5c. The extent to which actual group i-deals differentiation serves as the basis for perceived group i-deals differentiation largely depends on i-deal secrecy, visibility, and immediacy. Perceived group i-deals differentiation best indicates actual group i-deals differentiation when there is low secrecy, high visibility, and strong immediacy.

Consequences of Relative I-deals: A Social Comparison Perspective

Differences in i-deals can be understood from an individual-within-group perspective, or relative i-deals. However, it is likely that actual differences in i-deals are not fully known by individuals and that employees will instead evaluate perceived differences to determine their relative standing. That is, social comparisons regarding i-deals are perceptual (Kong et al., 2020; Ng, 2017). Indeed, what people perceive and believe have stronger implications than differences that are truly present (Lawler, 1965). Thus, although actual relative i-deals exist, perceived relative in i-deals should be stronger and more proximal predictors of how individuals react to differences. Therefore, drawing on social comparison theory, we focus on perceived relative i-deals in our theory development regarding consequences of relative i-deals.

Comparisons involving i-deals are upward when comparers perceive being worse-off and downward when comparers perceive being better-off—relative to a referent (Marescaux et al., 2021). However, social comparisons derived from perceived relative i-deals are not as simple as upward (toward superior other) or downward (toward inferior others), as both types are capable of functional or dysfunctional outcomes (Greenberg et al., 2007; Wood, 1989). This brings attention to the concept of assimilation (“I can become like them”) and contrast (“I am not like them”), which can occur when one engages in either upward or downward comparisons (Smith, 2000). Therefore, moving beyond just upward and downward comparisons (Vidyarthi et al., 2016), we integrate discussions on assimilative (“that can be me”) and contrastive (“that is not me”) social comparison processes (Marescaux et al., 2021; Smith, 2000) with a fresh conceptualization of perceived relative i-deals. Since attainability of i-deals influences assimilation and contrast (Crusius et al., 2022), we also examine how social exchange i-deals contribute to assimilation due to greater belief of future opportunities while economic i-deals contribute to contrast due to a shorter-term view of attainability. We focus on social comparison outcomes indicating (a) how a comparer treats the referent coworker and (b) how the comparer’s job is impacted by the comparison. Figure 2 presents our model of consequences of relative i-deals.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Consequences of relative i-deals.Note: The ‘‘Q’’ and ‘‘M’’ attached to each type of content difference (task,schedule, location, financial) are meant to represent the existence of quality and mangnitude differences. For example, if one is particularly intersted in task i-deal differences, then task quality and task magnitude differences should be included as covariates.

Perceived Relative I-deals and Assimilative Versus Contrastive Comparisons

The social comparison and i-deals literature suggests attainability of status in i-deals is key in determining assimilation or contrast (Marescaux et al., 2021; Smith, 2000). Consistent with these views, social exchange i-deals can lead to perceptions of attainability (assimilation) because workers have an expectation that these i-deals require a longer-term employee–employer relationship (“I don’t have i-deals like that, but it’s only a matter of time”) (Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau et al., 2006). Indeed, social exchange i-deals signal the employer’s willingness in investing in a long-term employee–employer relationship and likely lead to assimilation for perceived relative i-deals (Lai et al., 2009). On the contrary, economic exchange i-deals offer less hope of attainability (contrast) because they strongly emphasize a worker’s current skills or contributions (Rousseau, 2005), which can serve as a sharp contrast because the thought of improving one’s skills and contributions may not be quick or feasible in the short term. Therefore, largely based on the employer’s calculation of gain/loss, economic exchange i-deals are more likely associated with contrastive outcomes for perceived relative i-deals (“it’s not happening”). Indeed, evidence from Lai and colleagues (2009) suggests workers that expect long-term relationships with their employers see i-deals as more attainable than those with short-term expectations. In addition, the lower proportion of economic i-deals suggests they are much more competitive (e.g., mostly based on skills and contributions) (Rosen et al., 2013), which may be demotivating as workers often believe they contribute just as much as coworkers (Rousseau et al., 2006). In short, we offer the following proposition:

Proposition 6

Differences in social exchange i-deals lead to assimilative effect for perceived relative i-deals, while economic exchange i-deals lead to contrastive effect for perceived relative i-deals.

Upward Contrastive Comparisons of Economic Exchange I-deals and Malicious Envy

When worker A compares their economic exchange i-deals (financial incentives) to superior worker B, they are likely to fixate on their current attainability rather than future opportunities, inciting dysfunctional emotions like malicious envy and leading to ostracism toward worker B and less work engagement. Malicious envy, a dysfunctional form of envy that “motivates to damage the position of the envied person” (van de Ven et al., 2009, p. 428), is a likely reaction from perceived inferiority in economic i-deals since an individual’s place in the social hierarchy becomes compromised (“why don’t I have i-deals like that right now?”) (Reh et al., 2018; Smith, 2000; Wood, 1989). When someone experiences malicious envy, they may engage in ostracism as a less direct or obvious way to relieve the sense of malicious envy (Smith, 2000; Smith et al., 2009). Workplace ostracism is “when an individual or group omits to take actions that engage another organizational member when it is socially appropriate” (Robinson et al., 2013, p. 206). This is consistent with Ng (2017), who found that workers worse-off in i-deals were more likely to envy and ostracize workers they perceived as better-off in i-deals. Indeed, distancing themselves from a superior other by way of ostracism may become a means of reducing the negative emotions (malicious envy) caused by having inferior i-deals (Tesser, 1986).

The malicious envy and wounded self-esteem brought about by having inferior i-deals may also lead to decreased work engagement in worker A, referring to the degree to which workers apply themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally to their work roles (Kahn, 1990). Specifically, to cope with the negative feelings resulted from upward contrastive comparisons of economic exchange i-deals, worker A may give less importance to economic exchange i-deals and devalue the meaning of work (Tesser, 1986), reducing their physical, cognitive, and emotional attachment to the job. In sum, upward contrastive comparisons of economic exchange i-deals are likely to lead to ostracism toward superior i-dealers and diminished work engagement in the inferior comparer.

Proposition

7a. When the content of i-deals is of economic exchange nature, perceiving an inferior relative status in i-deals (perceived low relative i-deals) likely leads to a contrast effect, resulting in malicious envy and subsequently higher ostracism behaviors and lower work engagement.

Downward Contrastive Comparisons of Economic Exchange I-deals and Schadenfreude

When worker A perceives worker B as inferior in economic exchange i-deals, worker A’s current attainability of i-deals will bring feelings of superiority and joy over worker B’s misfortune, leading to the undermining of worker B and increased work engagement for worker A. Pleasure from the misfortune of others is a contrastive emotional reaction referred to as schadenfreude (Smith et al., 2009). Differences in economic exchange i-deals such as financial incentives likely contribute to an overall competitive environment within the organization. Considering such a competitive organizational context and economic exchange i-deals as competitive resources (Brown et al., 2007; Rosen et al., 2013), schadenfreude may be a likely emotional reaction to downward comparisons of economic i-deals (“they can’t keep up, I must be better than them”). Following such logic, feelings of schadenfreude may lead to worker A savoring their superiority in i-deals by socially undermining the referent (e.g., spreading rumors, sabotaging work, and sharing inaccurate information) (Marescaux et al., 2021; Reh et al., 2018). Social undermining of worker B would hinder their success at work, their reputation, and their ability to maintain workplace relationships (Duffy et al., 2002), allowing worker A to protect their status in i-deals.

Further, worker A may display greater work engagement (Kahn, 1990) because (a) they become more motivated to apply themselves at work to maintain their status in i-deals (Qiao et al., 2021) and (b) their superiority is self-perceived as a reflection of how much they are valued (Greenberg et al., 2004). Because the superior comparer is motivated to maintain their status in i-deals, we expect the comparer to feel schadenfreude toward the inferior referent, subsequently leading to social undermining of the referent and an increase in their own work engagement.

Proposition

7b. When the content of i-deal is of economic exchange nature, perceiving a superior relative status in i-deals (perceived high relative i-deals) likely leads to contrast, resulting in schadenfreude and subsequent higher social undermining and higher work engagements.

Upward Assimilative Comparisons of Social Exchange I-deals and Benign Envy

Recent research suggests that envy may be benign (Lange et al., 2018). Benign envy, which regards one’s inferiority “that motivates to attain more for oneself” is a functional type of envy (van de Ven et al., 2009, p. 245). Different from malicious envy, benign envy creates admiration and motivation to become like the superior other (Lange et al., 2018). When worker A compares their social exchange i-deals to superior worker B, worker A may believe they can reach similar status because the employer is willing to invest in employees. Because social exchange i-deals may be perceived as more attainable, worker A is likely to make an effort to (a) get closer to learn more from superior worker B (role modeling) and (b) to display gratitude for their newfound motivation to attain i-deals. Worker A may engage in helping behaviors, defined as voluntary behaviors that help specific coworkers and promote harmony (e.g., cheerleading, courtesy, consideration, and cooperation) (Deckop et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2000).

In addition, the motivation to achieve better i-deals may result in worker A’s higher work engagement (physical, cognitive, and emotional application at work; Kahn, 1990). Being inspired to achieve greater i-deals, worker A may find new meaning in their work, making it seem more valuable (Kahn, 1990), with the added benefit that it may be noticed by the allocator of i-deals. Thus, the superior social exchange i-deals of a coworker (worker B) may be seen as attainable and motivate the inferior individual (worker A), eliciting helping behaviors toward superior worker B and increasing inferior worker A’s work engagement.

Proposition

7c. When the content of i-deal is of social exchange nature, perceiving an inferior relative status in i-deals (perceived low relative i-deals) likely leads to assimilation, resulting in benign envy and subsequent higher helping behaviors and work engagement.

Downward Assimilative Comparisons of Social Exchange I-deals and Sympathy

When worker A compares their social exchange i-deals to inferior worker B, they are likely to engage in helping behavior toward inferior worker B and greater work engagement for worker A. Because worker A is likely to understand that social exchange i-deals require time with the employer (Rousseau et al., 2006), they are less likely to attribute their superiority to being more skilled or valuable, as is with schadenfreude. Instead, worker A may sympathize with worker B’s inferiority regarding social exchange i-deals. Sympathy describes sorrow or concern from perceiving a person’s misfortune (Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009). Because worker A enjoys superior social exchange i-deals and understands the individual needs they meet, seeing worker B’s inferiority may create an urge for worker A to step up (Wayment et al., 1995), leading to helping behaviors as a means of filling the void caused by inferior i-deals for worker B.

Note that unlike empathy, sympathy does not entail experiencing the same feelings as the unfortunate other (e.g., distress and self-deflation) (Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009), meaning worker A may still experience a form of benign self-enhancement (“I feel bad for them, but I’m glad to have my i-deals”). Indeed, evidence and theory suggest that comparisons with worse-off others are self-enhancing, regardless of the relationship with the referent or if the downward comparison is assimilative (Greenberg et al., 2007; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992). As such, worker A is likely to feel greater appreciation of the social exchange i-deals they have received from their employer and become motivated to reciprocate to their employer by applying themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally at work (work engagement) (Kahn, 1990; Hornung et al., 2010). Thus, superiority in social exchange i-deals is likely to incite feelings of sympathy toward a less fortunate coworker, leading to helping behaviors toward the inferior referent and increased work engagement for the superior i-dealer.

Proposition

7d. When the content of i-deal differences is of social exchange nature, perceiving a superior relative status in i-deals (perceived relative i-deals) likely leads to assimilation, resulting in sympathy and subsequent higher helping behaviors and work engagement.

Additive Effect of Perceived Differences in Content, Quantity, and Magnitude

Comparisons involving multiple types of perceived differences in i-deals elicit the strongest assimilative and contrastive emotions, regardless of the direction of comparison. For each type of perceived differences that is involved in a comparison (i.e., content, quantity, and magnitude), the relative status between the comparer and referent is likely to increase, along with the felt emotion that results. For the more attainable social exchange i-deals, greater quantity and magnitude differences are likely to result in stronger assimilative emotions as worker A is more likely to perceive (a) higher relative status in superior worker B’s i-deals and thus motivation to attain better i-deals for themselves (benign envy) or (b) lower relative status in inferior worker B that elicits greater feelings of concern for them as their misfortune appears greater (sympathy).

Considering economic exchange i-deals are less attainable, greater quantity and magnitude differences can make contrastive emotions stronger whereby worker A perceives (a) higher relative status in worker B’s i-deals and thus greater motivation to lower their status (malicious envy) or (b) lower relative status in worker B’s i-deals and thus a greater feeling of joy for being superior to them (schadenfreude). As such, with each type of difference type involved in a comparison, we expect that the relative status between comparer and referent widens, strengthening the felt emotion that results from comparison.

Proposition 8

Assimilative (benign envy and sympathy) and contrastive (malicious envy and schadenfreude) emotions elicited by perceived relative i-deals of social exchange and economic exchange nature, respectively, are likely to be strengthened when quantity and magnitude differences in i-deals increase.

Consequences of Group I-Deals Differentiation

In addition to an individual-within-group perspective, differences in i-deals can be understood from the group level as perceived or actual group i-deals differentiation, which are focused on the extent to which subjective or objective differences in i-deals exist in a group, respectively. Like the individual level, we argue that the effect of perceived group i-deals differentiation on group effectiveness and performance may be influenced by whether the content of an i-deal is of economic or social exchange nature. We theorize how perceived group i-deals differentiation impacts group outcomes by first impacting socioemotional (cohesion) and task functioning (coordination) in groups, two critical aspects of groupwork (Hackman, 1987). In addition, we explain how actual differences may be influential at the group level where they aggregate and reduce smooth coordination of work activities, irrespective of whether it is perceived. As such, we consider how actual group i-deals differentiation impacts group outcomes via coordination. We end by discussing how the joint effect of differences (content, quantity, magnitude) increases the strength of the effect of actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation. Figure 3 displays our group-level model of i-deals differentiation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Consequences of group i-deals differentiation.Note: The ‘‘Q‘’’ and ‘‘M’’ attached to each type of content difference (task,schedule, location, financial) are meant to represent the existence of quality and mangnitude differences. For example, if one is particularly intersted in task i-deal differences, then task quality and task magnitude differences should be included as covariates.

Outcomes of Actual Group I-deals Differentiation

Actual group i-deals differentiation involving economic or social exchange i-deals adversely impacts group outcomes because it disrupts group coordination. The presence of actual group i-deals differentiation suggests members have different tasks, schedules, work locations, and/or financial incentives that a leader must keep track of. Because i-deals are informal work arrangements negotiated by employees and employers (Rousseau et al., 2006), they may not be documented in proper fashion and lead to greater difficulty knowing the various work arrangements in the group, hurting coordination (Rousseau, 2001; Rousseau et al., 2016). Group coordination, “the process of orchestrating the sequence and timing of interdependent actions” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 367), is a critical group process that involves planning and communication meant to manage deadlines, schedules, and the roles of workers for the sake of smooth completion of group tasks (Kozlowski & Bell, 2013; Rico et al., 2008). A wider array of work arrangements in a group requires more effort (Hornung et al., 2008) for a group leader or group members to determine which members are (a) most competent for a role, (b) available, and (c) most motivated for a task, leaving more room for error in coordinating group tasks and activities. Such coordination disruptions make a group get “out of sync” (Marks et al., 2001), which is consistent with meta-analytic evidence suggesting coordination is a critical predictor of group performance and effectiveness (LePine et al., 2008). Overall, actual group i-deals differentiation (for both social and economic exchange i-deals) impairs group coordination, subsequently hurting group outcomes.

Proposition

9a. Actual group differentiation in terms of either social or economic exchange–based i-deals undermines group task coordination, which reduces group performance and effectiveness.

Outcomes of Perceived Group I-deals Differentiation

We submit that perceived group i-deals differentiation involving economic exchange i-deals (rather than social exchange) is more adverse for group cohesion, task coordination, and subsequent group outcomes. Perceived group differentiation involving economic exchange i-deals are more adverse than social exchange i-deals because they are more likely to suggest the current contributions of recipients are greater than other group members (Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau et al., 2006) and because they are scarcer resources (Rosen et al., 2013). Group differentiation involving social exchange i-deals may also have adverse effects as they are still valued resources and differences compound and become more apparent at the group level (“My group differentially grants these i-deals”). However, workers are more likely to recognize that social exchange i-deals reflect care and support from the organization that come in due time (Rousseau, 2005), rather than suggesting group members are differentially valued. As such, economic exchange i-deals are likely to be more adverse for the group than social exchange i-deals.

With such an adverse effect, perceived differentiation in economic exchange i-deals may elicit greater relational conflict (Rousseau et al., 2016), which could interfere with group cohesion and coordination (Marks et al., 2001). Indeed, evidence suggests that group relational conflict deteriorates group cohesion, “the total set of forces keeping group members together,” subsequently hurting group performance and effectiveness as conflict makes group members blame each other for issues and drives members apart (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tekleab et al., 2009, p. 174). Group coordination may also be negatively impacted by perceived group differentiation in economic exchange i-deals as conflict over i-deals makes workers pick and choose who to work with and who to share information with (O’Neill et al., 2013). Groups with good coordination run smoothly and perform better as members communicate the timing and sequence of their roles and integrate their individual actions (Mathieu et al., 2008; Marks et al., 2001). Perceived differentiation in economic exchange i-deals, therefore, may cause greater inclination for group members to avoid each other to avoid deflating comparisons (Smith & Insko, 1987; Wood, 1989) and may lead to selective information sharing (Lind & Tyler, 1988). As such, perceived differentiation in economic exchange (vs. social exchange) i-deals is more likely to be more dysfunctional for group outcomes because it has a more adverse effect on group cohesion and group coordination.

Proposition

9b. Compared with perceived group differentiation in social exchange–based i-deals, perceived group differentiation in economic exchange–based i-deals relates more negatively to group cohesion and group coordination, subsequently reducing group performance and effectiveness.

Additive Effect of Differences in Content, Quantity, and Magnitude

The adverse effect of actual and perceptual group i-deals differentiation on group processes and outcomes strengthens with each type of difference (content, quantity, and magnitude) that is present in the group. In terms of actual group i-deals differentiation, each additional difference type that is present makes it even more difficult for the group to coordinate activities as group members have even more nuanced differences in their work arrangements (“four group members will be away this month, but each for different time spans”). For perceived group i-deals differentiation, with each type of difference that manifests in a group, group members perceive greater differences in how i-deals are distributed within the group (“In my group we all get very different i-deals”). That is, conflict may intensify if group members perceive not only having differences in the content of their i-deals but also differences in the quantity and size of their i-deals (magnitude). Thus, when content, quantity, and magnitude differences are present at once, the dysfunctional effects of actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation are the strongest as differences are more pronounced.

Proposition

9c. The negative effect of actual and perceptual group i-deals differentiation on group processes and outcomes is the strongest when there are differences in content, quantity, and magnitude of i-deals.

Perceived Group I-deals Differentiation and Perceived Relative I-Deals: A Cross-Level Perspective

Perceived group i-deals differentiation may impact the perceived attainability of i-deals at the individual level, leading to stronger contrast and less assimilation. The presence of perceived group differentiation suggests the extent to which group members do not have identical i-deals while perceived relative i-deals indicates an individual’s perceived relative status in i-deals (either better or worse) compared to a referent. We focus on perceptual differences in i-deals because of the perceptual nature of social comparison theory that is central to the functioning of relative i-deals (Festinger, 1954). Scholars have argued that perceiving above average i-deals in a team where i-deals differ greatly (high group i-deals differentiation) could make a group member’s i-deals seem even more valuable as they may perceive having obtained a rare resource (i-deals) (Anand & Vidyarthi, 2016). As such, perceived group i-deals differentiation could have a cross-level effect and strengthen emotions regarding one’s relative status in i-deals (perceived relative i-deals) by making i-deals seem more or less attainable (“My group is/isn’t selective in giving out this i-deal”) (Anand & Vidyarthi, 2016; Goodman & Haisley, 2007). Figure 4 displays the cross-level relationship between perceived group i-deals differentiation and perceived relative i-deals.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Cross-level model of differences in i-deals.Note: The ‘‘Q’’ and ‘‘M’’ attached to each type of content difference (task,schedule, location, financial) are meant to represent the existence of quality and mangnitude differences. For example, if one is particularly intersted in task i-deal differences, then task quality and task magnitude differences should be included as covariates.

Contrastive emotions (schadenfreude and malicious envy) are likely to result from comparisons involving less attainable i-deals (“I/They cannot get i-deals like this”) (Crusius et al., 2022; Wood, 1989). The presence of perceived group i-deals differentiation would make contrast stronger as the attainability of i-deals is further reduced, and the value of an i-deal increases (Anand & Vidyarthi, 2016). As such, the decreased attainability of i-deals may make successful negotiation more confirming that recipients are better skilled than others, making (a) superiority feel better (schadenfreude) and (b) inferiority more spiteful (malicious envy). Unlike contrastive emotions, assimilative emotions (sympathy and benign envy) are more likely to result from comparisons involving more attainable status (“I/They can get i-deals like this”). However, greater perceived group differentiation could reduce the attainability of i-deals as group members come to learn that the attainability of these i-deals is less clear and more selective, making (a) ones concern for others’ misfortune less likely as one becomes more concerned with their own attainability (less sympathy) and (b) witnessing another’s superiority more painful and less admirable because they have i-deals that are difficult to obtain (less benign envy/more malicious envy). Thus, we contend that groups with a larger extent of differences in i-deals (perceived group i-deals differentiation) become more selective in granting i-deals and create conditions for social comparisons that are more contrastive rather than assimilative.

Proposition

10a. Perceived group i-deals differentiation serves as a contextual backdrop against which employees interpret their perceived relative i-deals.

Proposition

10b. When perceived group i-deals differentiation is higher, perceived relative i-deals tend to lead to more contrast and less assimilation.

Discussion

The focus of the current paper has been to examine differences in individually negotiated i-deals and their implications for individuals within a group and the group itself. Despite an increasing interest in understanding differences of i-deals within a group, the lack of guiding theory has created ambiguity regarding the nature of differences being examined, limiting the accumulation of knowledge. In response, we have conceptualized specific differences that may emerge between the i-deals of coworkers, how these differences can manifest as actual or perceived, the impact of differences at distinct theoretical levels, and the critical role of an i-deal’s content in influencing the effect of differences.

Our effort contributes to the advancement of multilevel research in i-deals, while simultaneously promoting a cohesive literature on differences in i-deals. Since its inception, i-deals have mainly been examined as customized work arrangements that impact individual recipients’ work outcomes (Liao et al., 2016). While findings from this stream of research have clearly supported the importance of i-deals as an effective nonstandard HR practice and an influential workplace phenomenon, much less is known regarding how the distribution of i-deals within a group serves as a contextual factor beyond the individual level that may influence the utility of i-deals (Vidyarthi et al., 2016). While scholars have taken multilevel approaches to examining i-deals (see Anand et al., 2018; Bal et al., 2012; Bal & Boehm, 2019), research in i-deals differentiation is still fragmented, with disagreement on how differences should be conceptualized and operationalized (e.g., Kong et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2009; Vidyarthi et al., 2016). Thus, by taking a multilevel perspective in studying differences in i-deals, we clarify how differences impact both groups and individuals. We also propose a cross-level effect where group i-deals differentiation strengthens the effects of perceived relative i-deals at the individual-within-the-group level. Our development of differences in i-deals at the individual and group levels, therefore, helps to provide a comprehensive multilevel model that not only explains its effects on individual- and group-level outcomes but also sheds light on how differences in i-deals at various levels interact with each other.

Consistent with our theory development of actual or perceived differences in i-deals, we argued that perceived relative i-deals (subjective standing in i-deals) are more closely linked to the perceptual nature of social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) while both actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation could be theoretically relevant in groups, where they may impact a group’s task or socioemotional functioning (Hackman, 1987). The i-deals literature has largely overlooked the distinction between actual and perceived i-deals, leading to mismatches between theory and measurement (e.g., Kong et al., 2020; Vidyarthi et al., 2016) spurred by potential confusion as to when actual or perceived differences in i-deals are most theoretically appropriate. To prevent any future disconnect in the nascent literature on differences in i-deals, we hope the clear distinction between actual and perceived differences we introduce can help researchers to better align their operationalization with theory. Consistent with Vidyarthi et al.’s (2016) calculation of objective relative i-deals, actual differences in i-deals do exist. However, workers often develop perceptions that may not always reflect actual differences due to secrecy, the visibility of an i-deal’s content, and whether coworkers are within each other’s immediate location. In addition, we believe a clear distinction between actual and perceived differences could lead to more precise theory that identifies unique mechanisms that transmit their effect. Considering the dearth of group-level research on i-deals (Anand & Vidyarthi, 2016; Liao et al., 2016; Rousseau et al., 2006), a distinction between actual and perceived differences may be especially important for future group-level i-deals research where less guidance from previous work is available. For example, we argued that perceived differences could impact both group cohesion and group coordination due to conflict elicited by the perception of differences while actual differences only impact group coordination through functional means whereby a wide array of different work arrangements make it harder for a group to coordinate members and tasks efficiently. Overall, we believe scholars are better situated to make a more thoughtful decision as to whether to examine actual or perceived differences in i-deals and design empirical research that matches their theory.

As another contribution to the conceptual clarification of differences in i-deals, we articulate that there are three dimensions along which i-deals can differ. By distinguishing between dimensions of differences, scholars are encouraged to theorize more precisely on what they mean by differences rather than referring to differences broadly in terms of “level” (Kong et al., 2020; Lai et al., 2009; Ng, 2017) while potentially theorizing in terms of quantity only (e.g., Vidyarthi et al., 2016). For example, Ng (2017) studied perceived differences in i-deals at the individual level and found that workers with “low” development i-deals felt they were more envied than workers with “high” development i-deals. The authors were puzzled by such a finding, but one possible explanation is that those with “low” development i-deals perceived having development i-deals of either (a) greater magnitude, (b) greater quantity, or (c) both greater magnitude and quantity—all of which may have led to their perception of being more envied. Further, our theorized additive effect of these three difference dimensions allows the consideration of their joint effect without losing theoretical precision. Thus, distinguishing between content, quantity, and magnitude differences promotes the development of more precise theory and reduces the chances of conflicting findings.

Enriching the current theory on differences in i-deals, we highlight the distinct nature of content of i-deals by explaining that some i-deals are of social exchange nature, while others may reflect economic exchange. Such a distinction serves as a foundational building block as we continue to develop theory on the impact of differences of i-deals within the group and echoes previous calls for scholars to theoretically consider the content of an i-deal (Liao et al., 2016; Rosen et al., 2013). Specifically making a distinction between social and economic exchange i-deals, we now know why some content differences in i-deals can be motivating for individuals to do good, while other content differences lead to individuals doing harm, regardless of having relatively higher or lower standing in i-deals. Such a distinction is just as valuable in guiding future group-level research where scholars may have less clarity about how differences in the content of an i-deal can impact groups. In sum, i-deals scholars should now have greater clarity as to why the content of an i-deal is important in driving its effect and more carefully consider the role of an i-deal’s content.

Overall, our contributions to the i-deals literature offer guidance regarding how scholars can study the consequences of i-deals in work group settings, where coworkers and the overall group unit can be impacted by differences in i-deals.

Conclusion

We have provided what we hope is a formal starting point on research that examines i-deals differentiation, furthering its conceptualization and unraveling its potential multilevel nature. With a nascent literature on differences in i-deals, it is critical for scholars to have a shared conceptual understanding of the possible differences that may emerge so that the literature progresses cohesively. I-deals research on group outcomes is also in its infancy, so we hope to excite further group and multilevel research to better understand how i-deals operate beyond the individual level. As we have argued, scholars should be explicit in (a) whether differences regard content, quantity, or magnitude, (b) whether they are examining actual or perceived differences, (c) how the content of an i-deal drives the effect of differences, and (d) whether the effect of these differences manifest at the individual or group level. We also suggest that group i-deals differentiation is an important context in determining how individual i-deals can have implications at higher levels. Therefore, now is the best time to carry this work forward to better understand if the effects of i-deals are truly ideal.