Title
Flexibility i-deals: How much is ideal?
Publication Date
2014
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aimed to explore the relationship between flexibility i-deals and employee attitudes. The authors developed theory and tested a non-linear model between i-deals and perceived organizational support (POS), and career satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – Hierarchical linear modeling using multisource data collected in a field study from 207 employees and 39 managers supported the hypotheses.
Findings – Consistent with the proposed non-linear model, low and high levels of flexibility i-deals were associated with high POS and career satisfaction. At moderate levels of i-deals, employee attitudes were lower.
Research limitations/implications – Though non-linear relationships are unlikely to result from multi source common method data, the cross-sectional study design limits the authors from claiming causality between the variables of interest. This study is an important step towards elucidating the complex nature of relationship between flexibility i-deals and employee outcomes.
Practical implications – Organizations must heed the needs of employees who seek accommodations in their work schedule. However, organizations should be cognizant of the associated implications at different levels of flexibility granted.
Social implications – I-deals partly satisfied employees’ need for affiliation by strengthening their emotional bonds with the organization (i.e. POS). I-deals also enhanced employees’ career satisfaction which is an important component of self-actualization. By meeting employees’ higher order needs i-deals have the potential to create a workplace that provides overall wellbeing rather than just a living.
Originality/value – This is the first study to investigate non-linear relationships between flexibility i-deals and employee attitudes.
Comments
Prajya R. Vidyarthi, Anjali Chaudhry, Smriti Anand, Robert C. Liden, (2014) "Flexibility i-deals: how much is ideal?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 Issue: 3, pp.246-265, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0225