Content area
Full text
Contents
- Abstract
- Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
- I-deals, Affective Commitment, and Proactive Behaviors
- The Social Exchange Approach
- The Self-Enhancement Approach
- The Moderating Role of Individualism
- Method
- Sample and Procedure
- Measures
- OBSE
- POS
- Proactive behaviors
- Affective commitment
- Individualism
- Control variables
- Results
- CFAs
- Hypothesis Testing
- Discussion
- Implications, Limitations, and Directions for Further Research
- Conclusion
Figures and Tables
Abstract
The majority of studies on idiosyncratic employment arrangements (“i-deals”) are based on social exchange theory. The authors suggest that self-enhancement theory, in addition to social exchange, can be used to explain the effects of i-deals. Using a multisource sample including 230 employees and 102 supervisors from 2 Chinese companies, the authors adopt a 3-wave lagged design to examine the mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism in the relationships between i-deals and employee outcomes, as indicated by proactive behaviors and affective commitment. The results of bootstrapping analyses confirm the mediating effects of social exchange and self-enhancement. In addition, employees with high levels of individualism are more receptive to self-enhancement effects; in contrast, employees with low levels of individualism are more receptive to social exchange effects.
Employees increasingly negotiate idiosyncratic deals (“i-deals”), that is, customized work arrangements, with their employers (Rousseau, 2005). I-deals encompass information about the strength and quality of employee–employer exchange relationships, including additional compensation and special arrangements such as flexible work hours, location, or methods (Greenberg, Roberge, Ho, & Rousseau, 2004). Because i-deals represent an important exchange between the employer and the employee, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which delineates the dynamics of resource exchanges between two or more parties, frequently serves to help explain the relationships between antecedents and i-deals (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010; Rosen, Slater, Chang, & Johnson, 2013) and between i-deals and outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (cf. Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010; Organ, 1988), social and economic exchange (Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009), work–life balance, commitment, and performance (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008). The key proposition of the social exchange approach to i-deals is that when employers...





