Search results

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have been shown to influence several employee outcomes positively. To extend the research, the authors examine the effect of i-deals on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, in particular, how the relationship between employees’ own i-deals and organizational justice is affected by employees' job performance as well as their perceptions of coworkers’ i-deals.

The authors tested the theoretical model using survey data from 182 hotel employees.

Results show that i-deals are positively related to employees’ perceptions of organizational justice and that such effects are stronger among high performing employees. The effect of i-deals on organizational justice was also more pronounced among employees who viewed coworkers as having successfully negotiated i-deals.

The authors' findings suggest that organizations can benefit from providing i-deals through employees’ enhanced perceptions of organizational justice. The paper thus recommends that organizations understand the impact of providing more flexible human resources (HR) practices and customized work arrangements that are aligned with individual goals and needs. This may be particularly relevant to high performers. Furthermore, the findings suggest that organizations may want to make i-deals available to employees more widely than to just a few selected individuals.

This study is one of a few attempts that empirically investigate the relationship between i-deals and organizational justice. The findings of this study shed light on the possibility that employees develop positive justice perceptions toward employeesʼ organization based on the appreciation of the customized work arrangements granted to both themselves and others.

The purpose of this study is to test a contingency model in which the relationship between task conflict and team performance depends on the extent to which team members differ in their levels of expertise and functional backgrounds.

Data were obtained from 71 student teams that completed a semester-long entrepreneurial project.

The results support the moderating role of expertise disparity in the process through which task conflict contributes to team performance. Task conflict had a curvilinear effect (inverted-U) on team performance in teams with high expertise disparity. In contrast, in teams with low expertise disparity, the relationship between task conflict and team performance was found to be linear and positive. The moderating role of functional background diversity was not supported.

This paper shows that the relationship between task conflict and team performance can exist in both a linear and a curvilinear fashion, and that what determines the form of the relationship has to do with a team’s diversity characteristics. The focus of future conflict research should be whether and how teams can realize the possible beneficial effects of task conflict, not whether task conflict is simply good or bad.

Managers may deliberately consider the differences in expertness among members when creating teams or assigning members to a team. Further, they may want to avoid extensive task conflict when a team’s expertise levels are unevenly distributed to lessen expected performance loss.

This study’s examination of the roles of two moderators in catalyzing the processes through which potential effects of task conflict are realized enhances the understanding of equivocal results in conflict research. The empirical evidence that this study provides informs a long-standing debate in the conflict literature – whether task conflict is functional or dysfunctional for teams – in a new, insightful way.