Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Idiosyncratic Deals from a Distributive Justice Perspective: Examining Co-workers’ Voice Behavior

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focuses on a third-party perspective of idiosyncratic deals (i-deals). More specifically, we look into the differential judgments co-workers make about i-deals in their work environment, as well as their reactions. Based on equity theory, we examine to what extent the content of the i-deal and the work context (i.e., the functional dependence between co-worker and i-dealer) explain co-worker judgments regarding i-deal fairness in addition to subsequent voice behavior (i.e., complaining and/or requesting compensation). A vignette study with 1988 respondents shows that when i-deals are considered distributively unfair, co-workers try to restore equity through voice behavior, thereby making the i-deal less effective. Furthermore, i-deals spark more distributive injustice perceptions and voice behavior in a highly interdependent work context. Finally, on average, financial bonuses were considered most distributively unfair and, thus, trigger more voice behavior. These results have important implications for i-deal literature as they uncover the criteria that co-workers use to judge i-deals and shape their reactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. More simple analyses, such as anova tests and regression analyses, led to the same conclusions as the structural equation analyses and are available upon request.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56(2), 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign workers versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 561–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, P. A., & Levi, R. (2009). Team-based reward allocation structures and the helping behaviors of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 300–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugre, C. D., & Baron, R. A. (2001). Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 324–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beus, J. M., & Whitman, D. S. (2015). Almighty dollar or root of all evil? Testing the effects of money on workplace behavior. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206314565241

  • Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos. Basic concepts application and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Meindl, J. R., & Hui, H. (1998). Deciding on equity or parity: A test of situational, cultural, and individual factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(2), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodations of employees with disabilities. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colella, A., Paetzold, R. L., Zardkoohi, A., & Wesson, M. J. (2007). Exposing pay secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2006). Justice in teams: The context sensitivity of justice rules across individual and team contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 868–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Berman, J. J., Kranas, G., & Kureshov, V. A. (2011). Revisiting the relationship of supervisor trust and CEO trust to turnover intentions: A three-country comparative study. Journal of World Business, 46, 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, N. (2012). Pay equity as a mediator of the relationships among attitudes and communication about pay level determination and pay secrecy. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19(4), 462–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Dulk, L., & de Ruijter, J. (2008). Managing work-life policies: Disruption versus dependency arguments. Explaining managerial attitudes towards employee utilization of work-life policies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1222–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., Cable, D. M., & Sherman, J. W. (2010). How passive ‘face time’ affects perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human Relations, 63(6), 735–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego-defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to design and report experiments. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organizational failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., & Haisley, E. (2007). Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Eskew, D. E. (1993). The role of role playing in organizational research. Journal of Management, 19, 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., Roberge, M., Ho, V. T., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Fairness in idiosyncratic work arrangements: Justice as an i-deal. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 23, pp. 1–34). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Van De Vliert, E., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Employees’ reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, H. G., & Bai, Y. (2014). In need of each other: The moderator of task interdependence between LMX variability and justice. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(6), 743–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Effects of leadership consideration and structure on employee perceptions of justice and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 492–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2009). Why supervisors make idiosyncratic deals: Antecedents and outcomes of i-deals from a managerial perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 738–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J. (2001). When organizations break their promises: Employee reactions to unfair processes and treatment. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., Edwards, J. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2015). Social comparison and distributive justice: East Asia differences. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., Rosen, B., & Lee, D. (2009). South Korean managerial reactions to voicing discontent: The effects of employee attitude and employee communication styles. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1001–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Understanding why team members won’t share an examination of factors related to employee receptivity to team-based rewards. Small Group Research, 31(2), 175–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossek, E., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Face time matters: A cross level model of how work life flexibility influences work performance of individuals and groups. In D. Lero, K. Korabick, & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Work family handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J., Lämsä, A. M., & Penttilä, K. (2011). Managers’ moral decision-making patterns over time: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Coworkers as interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). Bern: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, C., Wayne, S. J., & Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals in contemporary organizations: A qualitative and meta-analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristics theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., & Wu, L. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 832–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behaviour: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 537–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzini, M. (2010). Group-based compensation in professional service firms: An empirical analysis of medical group practices. The Accounting Review, 85(1), 343–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Mainiero, L. A. (1999). Managerial decision making regarding alternative work arrangements. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priesemuth, M., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2013). Bad behavior in groups: The impact of overall justice climate and functional dependence on counterproductive work behavior in work units. Group and Organization Management, 38(2), 230–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of psychological contract breach in a non-western culture: The moderating role of equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18, 376–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. C., Slater, D. J., Chang, C. D., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Let’s make a deal: Development and validation of the ex-post i-deals scale. Journal of Management, 39(3), 709–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Armonk, NY: M.E Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, J., & Wänke, M. (2016). A fresh look on money priming feeling privileged or not makes a difference. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sels, L., Janssens, M., Van den Brande, I., & Overlaet, B. (2000). Belgium, a culture of compromise. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in employment. Cross-national perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2002). Pay dispersion and workforce performance: Moderating effects of incentives and interdependence. Strategic Management Journal, 23(6), 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J., & Sohn, Y. W. (2015). Effects of employees’ social comparison behaviors on distributive justice perception and job satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(7), 1071–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skiba, M., & Rosenberg, S. (2011). The disutility of equity theory in contemporary management practice. Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 17(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevor, C. O., & Wazeter, D. L. (2006). A contingent view of reactions to objective pay conditions: Interdependence among pay structure characteristics and pay relative to internal and external referents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1260–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, L., Kossek, E., & Lobel, S. (2007). Less need to be there: Cross-level effects of work practices that support work-life flexibility and enhance group processes and group-level OCB. Human Relations, 60(8), 1123–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E. H., Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason, K. D., Polonsky, M. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2002). Designing vignette studies in marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 10(3), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., & Dickinson, J. (2014). Experimental method in HRM research. In K. Sanders, J. A. Cogin, & H. T. J. Bainbridge (Eds.), Research methods for human resource management. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagenczyk, T. J., Cruz, K. S., Cheung, J. H., Scott, K. L., Kiewitz, C., & Galloway, B. (2015). The moderating effect of power distance on employee responses to psychological contract breach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 853–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funded by Research Fund KU Leuven (OT/14/017)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IÉSEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS 9221), 3 Rue de la Digue, 59000, Lille, France

    Elise Marescaux

  2. Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Korte Nieuwstraat 33, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Sophie De Winne

  3. Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000, Louvain, Belgium

    Luc Sels

Authors
  1. Elise Marescaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie De Winne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luc Sels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elise Marescaux.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 Overview of the different scenarios
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4figure 4

Robustness checks. a Control variables added to the main model: age, gender, and educational level. Only significant results are represented for the control variables. All control variables were regressed on distributive injustice, complaining, and requesting compensation. 1Reference category: master degree. *p < .05; ***p < .001. b Likelihood of the hypothetical situation added as a control variable to the main model. ***p < .001. c Having an i-deal of their own (yes/no) added as a control variable to the main model. **p < .01; ***p < .001. d Two-group model (group 1 respondents have an i-deal of their own; group 2 respondents have no i-deal of their own). Coefficients group 1/Coefficients group 2. Differences between coefficients are calculated through Wald tests of parameter equalities. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. e Pay satisfaction added as a control variable to the main model. **p < .01; ***p < .001

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marescaux, E., De Winne, S. & Sels, L. Idiosyncratic Deals from a Distributive Justice Perspective: Examining Co-workers’ Voice Behavior. J Bus Ethics 154, 263–281 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3400-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3400-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation