What did we study, and why does it matter? 

In their pursuit to attract and retain talent in the changing world of work, organizations are increasingly moving away from standardized HR practices toward more individualized approaches. Idiosyncratic deals, or i-deals, have emerged as a prominent form of HR differentiation, allowing employees to negotiate personalized work arrangements catering to their needs and preferences. As i-deals play an essential role in attracting and retaining talent, they are gaining strategic importance within modern HR practices. This shift positions i-deals as essential tools in modern HR strategies rather than just one-off exceptions. However, while i-deals offer numerous benefits, they also raise significant fairness concerns among coworkers who do not receive such i-deals, highlighting the need for their fair and effective implementation. 

How did we study it, and what did we find? 

Our study, recently published in the Journal of Management Studies, explores how implementing i-deals shapes coworkers’ views of i-deals within the organization. We conducted 48 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders involved in implementing i-deals, including managers, i-dealers, and coworkers. We focused on how different aspects of i-deal implementation, specifically negotiation, allocation, communication, and consequences stages of i-deal implementation, influence coworkers’ perceptions of i-deals. Our findings revealed how various factors associated with these four stages of i-deal implementation shape coworkers’ fairness perceptions of i-deals, resulting in either positive or negative perceptions of i-deals. These factors include i) past success or future confidence in similar i-deal negotiations; ii) perceptions of i-dealer’s deservingness; iii) managerial relationships and perceived deservingness; iv) coworkers’ interest in the i-deal; v) secrecy versus openness of i-deals; vi) managerial role in communicating i-deals; vii) the interdependency of work; viii) direct and indirect consequences of i-deals, and ix) recognition of i-deal burdens. These findings suggest that coworkers’ perceptions of i-deals depend highly on how these deals are implemented, highlighting the need for careful management to address potential concerns about fairness among coworkers.  

Actionable takeaways 

Our study provides actionable insights for managers, i-dealers (employees receiving i-deals), and HR professionals to better anticipate and address fairness concerns associated with i-deal implementation based on empirical evidence. To help organizations anticipate and mitigate potential backlash associated with i-deals, our study provides practical recommendations on how specific factors related to i-deal implementation influence coworkers’ perceptions of i-deals. 

Firstly, fostering greater consistency in i-deal negotiations can significantly benefit managers. Although i-deals are tailored to individual needs, they frequently revolve around common resources, such as flexible work schedules, financial incentives, task assignments, or developmental opportunities. Recognizing these patterns enables managers to make more consistent decisions when granting i-deals. For example, recording requests’ nature and outcomes (e.g., approval or denial) can support fair and consistent practices. Such record-keeping also serves to justify decisions when needed, promote transparency, and reduce perceptions of bias in the i-deal negotiation. 

Secondly, our research highlights the importance of ‘deservingness’ as a critical factor in coworker perceptions of i-deals. Managers should base i-deals, especially those involving development opportunities or financial incentives, on visible contributions, such as performance, skills, or expertise. Similarly, establishing a shared understanding of legitimate needs, particularly for flexibility i-deals, is essential. Aligning i-deals with clear, merit-based criteria reduces perceptions of unfairness and helps employees evaluate their likelihood of obtaining similar arrangements. This approach minimizes disappointment and feelings of unfairness when specific criteria are unmet. 

Another significant implication of our findings is the trade-offs between secrecy and transparency in i-deal implementation. Both approaches have advantages and challenges, requiring careful consideration by managers. While confidentiality may temporarily alleviate tensions and prevent immediate backlash, it can foster long-term issues such as workplace gossip, misinterpretations, and perceptions of systemic unfairness. Secrecy is particularly difficult to maintain in highly interdependent environments. Conversely, transparency promotes procedural fairness but may lead to dissatisfaction if coworkers perceive i-deal recipients as undeserving. Managers should thoughtfully design disclosure strategies tailored to their organizational context, ensuring clear communication about the purpose, criteria, and conditions of i-deals to manage coworker perceptions over time effectively. 

Finally, i-deals can create additional burdens for coworkers, particularly in interdependent work settings. Before granting i-deals, managers should assess team interdependencies and anticipate potential workload shifts. Redistributing tasks or providing additional resources in highly interdependent environments may help mitigate these impacts. Additionally, proactive communication by i-dealers plays a pivotal role in shaping positive perceptions of fairness. When i-dealers acknowledge and address the potential effects of their arrangements on coworkers, it fosters goodwill and enhances the overall fairness and success of i-deals within the workplace.  

Overall, understanding the importance of consistency in i-deal negotiations, fair allocation to those who ‘deserve’ i-deals, careful communication of i-deals, and effective management of the aftermath enable organizations to build a stronger foundation for i-deal practices, which are becoming increasingly prominent in modern workplaces. This approach can set the right tone about i-deals within the organization and foster a more inclusive environment, maximizing the benefits of i-deals while minimizing negative views of i-deals among coworkers. 

Who Should Read the Full Paper and Why? 

The full paper will be valuable for managers, HR practitioners, and organizational leaders implementing or considering i-deal practices within their teams. It offers in-depth insights into how i-deals influence workplace dynamics and fairness perceptions by sharing first-hand accounts of coworkers’ perceptions of what they think and feel about i-deals. Additionally, researchers in organizational behavior and HR management will find the study valuable for understanding the complexities of i-deal implementation and its impact on coworkers’ perceptions, contributing to the broader literature on HR differentiation practices and fairness.