Line managers influence flexible working through the negotiation of i-deals

Putnam et al. (2014) argue that organizations need to move away from defining flexible working as a special privilege, and enshrine it as an employee right. However, this is not currently the case in many organizations where flexible working is not written into organizational policies as an employee right, but is a special privilege which must be requested and negotiated on an individual basis. Such nonstandard arrangements are becoming increasingly frequent, with the reduction in collective bargaining to establish common working conditions, including Europe and the USA (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). The positive effects of i-deals on work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and affective commitment, have been reported across both Western and Eastern cultures (Liao et al., 2016). These individual negotiations place line managers at the centre of decisions not only to approve flexible working, but also to define the content and boundaries of any flexible working arrangement. A substantial body of literature has developed around this topic of idiosyncratic deals (or i-deals). I-deals within the context of flexible working include: schedule and location flexibility, as well as reduced load arrangements (Hornung et al., 2010; Rosen et al., 2013). Taking a social exchange perspective emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the line manager and the employee, but it has been argued that social exchange mechanisms are not sufficient to explain i-deals; these need additional theoretical perspectives, such as employees pursuing their own personal goals, especially for flexibility or reduced workload contracts, or that the benefits derive from changes in job characteristics, such as autonomy (Liao et al., 2016).

Thus the negotiation of i-deals depends not only on social exchange mechanisms, but might be extended by using a Conservation of Resources framework (Hobfoil, 1989). Based on Conservation of Resources theory, the possibility to work flexibly entails valued resources (e.g., autonomy, flexibility, work-family balance, etc.), which flexible workers are motivated to defend from loss (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Therefore flexible workers take action to signal that their efficiency and productivity is not adversely affected (e.g., maintain visibility and presence, work to become more proficient and adaptable, show willingness to be flexible). The role of line managers in facilitating valued resources, such as autonomy, has been subject of limited research. However, a study conducted by Aryee et al. (2013) demonstrated that line managers’ support for control over work time increased flexible workers’ engagement in contextual work performance. In a further theoretical extension, Liu et al. (2013) considered both social exchange and selfenhancement as mediating mechanisms linking i-deals to employee work outcomes. They argued that because employees personally invest in their work, the negotiation of i-deals may lead to increased perceptions of selfworth, and high self-esteem. Their study supported these arguments such that organizational self-esteem mediated the effects of flexibility i-deals on employees’ proactive behaviours over and above social exchange. Thus, flexible working affects employee behaviours not only through social exchange but also through perceptions of self-enhancement. Rofcanin et al. (2017a) argue that managers play a critical role not only in the negotiation, but also the successful implementation of i-deals. While most research focuses on the impact of i-deals on employees’ attitudes and behaviours, Rofcanin et al. (2017a) focused on managers’ emotions. The study found that managers’ positive emotions were associated with employees’ socially connecting behaviours (i.e., the extent to which employees engage with co-workers and

Line managers and flexible working 103 improve team efficiency), while managers’ negative emotions were associated with employees’ socially disconnecting behaviours. Negotiated i-deals were more likely to be successfully executed where managers experienced positive rather than negative emotions.

Furthermore, most research has considered the effects of i-deals on individual employee performance, rather than team performance. Taking a social comparison perspective, Vidyarthi et al. (2016) suggested that having negotiated a successful i-deal raises the individual employee’s standing relative to others within the team, but that little research has been done that has considered the consequences of such an effect within the team context. In their study, the authors focused on leader-member exchange social comparison (LMXSC) variable, which reflects team members’ subjective assessment of their own LMX (leader-member exchange) compared to the LMX of their co-workers (Vidyarthi et al., 2010). They found that LMXSC only affected employee behaviour in groups characterized by low team orientation; in contrast, for closely connected and tight-knit groups, LMXSC had no effect on employee behaviour. Further work has also emphasized the influence of co-workers’ i-deals. For example, Kong et al. (2018) found that for an individual employee, others’ i-deals can have a negative influence by increasing their emotional exhaustion and deviant behaviours. Perceptions of co-workers’ i-deals can also impact on employees’ concerns regarding distributive justice and equity within teams, affecting their tendency to speak up about perceived unfairness (Marescaux et al., 2019). Thus, i-deals can have positive effects on individual employee performance, especially when they are loosely connected to their co-workers, but can have unintended consequences within closely interconnected teams, such as perceived inequity. This research aligns with findings from our own work (Clarke & Holdsworth, 2017) in which a key issue to emerge for managers of flexible work teams was that managers expect flexible workers to be “flexible with flexibility” in order to avoid a negative impact on team morale. The extent to which team effectiveness was perceived to be affected by flexible working depended on managers ensuring fairness and consistency in the implementation of flexible work, and avoiding ad hoc arrangements, to protect their team from negative consequences. They spoke about the importance of building trust and confidence not only for individuals, but also at a team level.