Exploring HR Differentiation from Co-Workers’ Perspective:A Deontic Justice Theory Perspective

Providing employees with individualized HR practices has become an important component of HR strategies. Despite the growing prevalence of individualization of HRM, research has overlooked the downside of such practices, in particular from co-workers’ perspective. This is an important omission because research to date has built on the assumption that the impact of HR differentiation on employees not entitled to such practices is either trivial or non-existent. Taking a first step, this research offers a conceptual model that explains how and under which conditions co-workers of a focal employee who is entitled to HR differentiation are likely to support and withdraw their support from the focal employee. Integrating deontic justice theory with research on perceived motivational climate (i.e., performance oriented versus mastery oriented unit climate), the proposed conceptual model underlines that differentiating HR practices is like a double-edged sword and caution is needed when implementing them in a team setting

Exploring HR Differentiation from Co-Workers’ Perspective:A Deontic Justice Theory Perspective

Providing employees with individualized HR practices has become an important component of HR strategies. Despite the growing prevalence of individualization of HRM, research has overlooked the downside of such practices, in particular from co-workers’ perspective. This is an important omission because research to date has built on the assumption that the impact of HR differentiation on employees not entitled to such practices is either trivial or non-existent. Taking a first step, this research offers a conceptual model that explains how and under which conditions co-workers of a focal employee who is entitled to HR differentiation are likely to support and withdraw their support from the focal employee. Integrating deontic justice theory with research on perceived motivational climate (i.e., performance oriented versus mastery oriented unit climate), the proposed conceptual model underlines that differentiating HR practices is like a double-edged sword and caution is needed when implementing them in a team setting

A Trickle-Down Model of Task and Development I-Deals

In today’s competitive landscape, employees increasingly negotiate idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), referring to personalized work arrangements that address recipients’ unique work needs and preferences. While i-deals unfold in a dyadic context between subordinates and their managers, the consequences of i-deals concern everyone including co-workers and the organization. Focusing on task and development i-deals, we propose a trickle-down model to explore whether and how organizations benefit from i-deals. First, we argue that managers’ task and development i-deals cascade down to their subordinates, leading them to have similar i-deals with downstream consequences for co-workers and the organization. Furthermore, we propose that effective implementation of task and development i-deals are context-specific: we integrate the role of managers’ servant leadership as a boundary condition to explore the association between managers’ and subordinates’ task and development i-deals. We also integrate subordinates’ prosocial motives to explore the association between subordinates’ task and development i-deals and their work outcomes. We draw on work adjustment, social learning and social information processing theories to study our proposed associations. The results of a matched employee–manager dataset collected in the Philippines support our hypothesized model. This study contributes to i-deals research by: (1) testing whether and how task and development i-deals can be mutually beneficial for all the involved parties; and (2) revealing how the context, at the individual level, explains how and when task and development i-deals can best be implemented in workplaces. This study highlights that individualization of HR practices need not be a zero-sum game.</p

A trickle down model of I-deals

Integrating social learning and career customization theories, in this research we set out to explore a trickle-down model of i-deals- individually negotiated personalized agreements of a non-standard nature between employees and their managers (Rousseau, 2005). We argue that manager i-deals are positively associated with subordinate i-deals which, in turn, also relate positively to employee work performance and career promotability. Moreover, we integrate two types of contextual conditions to underline the social context of i-deals: From a managers’ perspective, we propose that managers’ servant leadership moderates the positive association between manager and subordinate i-deals. In addition, from a focal employee perspective, we propose that employees’ prosocial motives is assumed to moderate the positive association between subordinate i-deals and their outcomes, i.e., work performance and career promotability. Results from a matched employee-manager data set supported our empirical model. This study contributes to i-deals research by: 1) integrating two contextual conditions that emphasize the importance of broader social elements inherent in i-deals; 2) revealing whether and how subordinate i-deals are beneficial both for themselves and for their organization, as predicted in i-deals’ theory. From a practical point of view, if organisations and managers aim to use i-deals as a strategic tool to increase employee work performance and career promotability, they need to be transparent about how they expect these deals to be used

What Do Job Insecure People Do? Examining Employee Behaviors and their Implications for Well-Being at a Weekly Basis

The current study investigated employees’ weekly responses to job insecurity. Based on appraisal theory, it was postulated that employees may adopt three coping strategies in response to job insecurity (i.e., remaining silent, adapting, or being proactive) in order to maintain or improve their weekly well-being. We introduced a multilevel moderated mediation model, explaining how weekly job insecurity would be related to well-being in the following weeks through these three behaviors. A 5- week diary study of 149 subordinates partially supported the model. The results showed two main contributions. First, employees are not passive responders to perceived job insecurity, but active shapers through coping depending on the context. Second, subordinates’ emotional regulation strategy and supervisors’ prosocial motivation, as trait variables, impact on how subordinates respond to perceived job insecurity over weeks. From a practical point of view, the dynamic nature of perceived job insecurity suggests implications for interventions to maintain subordinates’ well-bein

A trickle down model of I-deals

Integrating social learning and career customization theories, in this research we set out to explore a trickle-down model of i-deals- individually negotiated personalized agreements of a non-standard nature between employees and their managers (Rousseau, 2005). We argue that manager i-deals are positively associated with subordinate i-deals which, in turn, also relate positively to employee work performance and career promotability. Moreover, we integrate two types of contextual conditions to underline the social context of i-deals: From a managers’ perspective, we propose that managers’ servant leadership moderates the positive association between manager and subordinate i-deals. In addition, from a focal employee perspective, we propose that employees’ prosocial motives is assumed to moderate the positive association between subordinate i-deals and their outcomes, i.e., work performance and career promotability. Results from a matched employee-manager data set supported our empirical model. This study contributes to i-deals research by: 1) integrating two contextual conditions that emphasize the importance of broader social elements inherent in i-deals; 2) revealing whether and how subordinate i-deals are beneficial both for themselves and for their organization, as predicted in i-deals’ theory. From a practical point of view, if organisations and managers aim to use i-deals as a strategic tool to increase employee work performance and career promotability, they need to be transparent about how they expect these deals to be used

A Trickle-Down Model of Task and Development I-Deals

In today’s competitive landscape, employees increasingly negotiate idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), referring to personalized work arrangements that address recipients’ unique work needs and preferences. While i-deals unfold in a dyadic context between subordinates and their managers, the consequences of i-deals concern everyone including co-workers and the organization. Focusing on task and development i-deals, we propose a trickle-down model to explore whether and how organizations benefit from i-deals. First, we argue that managers’ task and development i-deals cascade down to their subordinates, leading them to have similar i-deals with downstream consequences for co-workers and the organization. Furthermore, we propose that effective implementation of task and development i-deals are context-specific: we integrate the role of managers’ servant leadership as a boundary condition to explore the association between managers’ and subordinates’ task and development i-deals. We also integrate subordinates’ prosocial motives to explore the association between subordinates’ task and development i-deals and their work outcomes. We draw on work adjustment, social learning and social information processing theories to study our proposed associations. The results of a matched employee–manager dataset collected in the Philippines support our hypothesized model. This study contributes to i-deals research by: (1) testing whether and how task and development i-deals can be mutually beneficial for all the involved parties; and (2) revealing how the context, at the individual level, explains how and when task and development i-deals can best be implemented in workplaces. This study highlights that individualization of HR practices need not be a zero-sum game

What Do Job Insecure People Do? Examining Employee Behaviors and their Implications for Well-Being at a Weekly Basis

The current study investigated employees' weekly responses to experienced job insecurity. Based on appraisal theory, it was postulated that employees may adopt three coping strategies in response to job insecurity (i.e., remaining silent, adapting, or being proactive) in order to maintain or improve their weekly well-being. We introduced a multilevel moderated mediation model, explaining how weekly job insecurity would be related to well-being in the following weeks through these three behaviors. We also expected that subordinate emotional regulation and supervisor prosocial motivation (both defined as trait variables) would function as contextual factors moderating the relationships of job insecurity with employee behavior and well-being. A 5-week diary study of 149 subordinates partially supported the model. The results showed longitudinal conditional indirect effects of job insecurity on subordinate well-being depending on subordinate emotional regulation style and supervisor prosocial motivation. In doing so, the study offers two main contributions to the job insecurity literature. First, employees are not passive responders to perceived job insecurity, but active shapers through coping depending on the context. Subordinates' emotional regulation strategy and supervisors' prosocial motivation, as trait variables, impact on how subordinates respond to perceived job insecurity over weeks. From a practical point of view, the dynamic nature of perceived job insecurity suggests implications for interventions to maintain subordinates' well-being