2. Although numerous previous studies have shown that i-deals can benefit the i-deals’ recipients
(for a review, see Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016), what is still less clear is how the recipients’
coworkers respond to the i-deals. Because i-deals operate in an organizational context, they
may have broader implications beyond the recipients, and coworker’s role has long been recog-
nized by i-deal researchers (Greenberg et al., 2004). As an interested third party, coworkers are an
important part of the triangle (i.e., employers, focal employees, and coworkers), which deter-
mines the ultimate effectiveness of i-deals (Greenberg et al., 2004; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg,
2006). However, thus far, empirical research on third-party implications of i-deals remains in
its infancy, with only a few studies shedding light on this issue.
Lai and colleagues found that coworkers were willing to accept others’ i-deals if the i-dealers
were their close personal friends (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009). Studies found that coworkers
who witnessed others’ i-deals and yet received lower levels of i-deals than others were likely to feel
envy or emotional exhaustion (Kong, Ho, & Garg, 2020; Ng, 2017). More recently, the results of a
study showed that i-deals concerning a financial bonus would be considered more distributively
unfair by coworkers than other i-deals concerning work-hour flexibility and workload reduction,
and thus triggered coworkers’ complaining (Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019). Taken together,
these studies indicate that coworkers do engage in the comparison of i-deals with the recipients,
and such comparison can cause coworkers’ psychological and behavioral reactions.
Nevertheless, two important gaps remain to be filled. First, although some investigations we
mentioned above have alluded to the existence of social comparison in the context of i-deals
among coworkers, empirical study exploring coworkers’ reactions toward focal employees’
i-deals from this perspective is still scarce (Guerrero & Challiol-Jeanblanc, 2016). Second, cow-
orkers’ acceptance is one neutral and representative reaction that should be strived for
(Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019), because i-deals’ ultimate effectiveness can partly depend
on coworkers’ acceptance (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009). However, we know little about
whether and how the contents of i-deals affect coworkers’ acceptance behavior, even though rele-
vant study has indicated that the contents of various types of i-deals can lead to different impacts
on coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors (Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019). Thus, to further
advance our understanding of which type of focal employees’ i-deals is more acceptable for cow-
orkers, a deeper investigation is warranted.
Our study tries to fill these gaps by using social comparison theory to explore how focal
employees’ different types of i-deals influence coworkers’ perceptions and subsequent acceptance
behavior. One common assumption in social comparison theory is upward comparison, or com-
parison with others who are better off, such as coworkers’ comparison with i-deals recipients
(Buunk & Mussweiler, 2001; Collins, 1996). Researchers have indicated that the effects of upward
comparisons depend on whether employees contrast or assimilate themselves with the compari-
son targets (Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004). When individuals contrast themselves, upward
comparison may threaten their self-identity and self- image (Collins, 1996; Van der Zee, Buunk,
Sanderman, Botke, & van den Bergh, 2000). Supporting this argument, existing studies have
shown that upward comparison may trigger coworkers’ adverse reactions, even social undermin-
ing behaviors, by inducing status threat (Marr & Thau, 2014; Reh, Tröster, & Van Quaquebeke,
2018). When individuals assimilate themselves, upward comparison may entail individuals’
assumption that they can attain a similarly attractive situation (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda,
2002; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). Consistent with this theorizing, upward comparison may
also show coworkers the possibility of obtaining comparable future i-deals like focal employees
received. Based on these rationales, we develop and test a model in which coworkers’ felt status
threat and coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals serve as mediators linking focal
employees’ development i-deals (i.e., individualized opportunities to develop working skills or
career advancement) and flexibility i-deals (i.e., personal discretion over working hours or loca-
tions) to coworkers’ acceptance.
2 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
3. Furthermore, given that the triangle consisting of focal employees, their coworkers, and their
leaders determines the final effectiveness of i-deals in the organizations, and the i-deals are for-
mally authorized by the leaders (Greenberg et al., 2004; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006), we
propose that the differentiation between coworkers’ leader–member exchange (coworkers’
LMX) and focal employees’ leader–member exchange (focal employees’ LMX) may constrain
coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors. Thus, we included coworkers’ LMX relative to the
LMXs of i-deals recipients (coworkers’ RLMX) in our theoretical model as a moderator that
may alter the extent of coworkers’ reactions to the focal employees’ i-deals.
Our study contributes to the literature in three specific ways. First, we contribute to i-deals
literature by enriching our understanding of the influences of focal employees’ i-deals on their
coworkers. The majority of previous i-deals research studies were conducted to clarify the impacts
of i-deals on focal employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Guerrero & Challiol-Jeanblanc,
2016; Liu et al., 2013; Ng & Feldman, 2010, 2015; Rosen et al., 2013; Vidyarthi, Singh, Erdogan,
Chaudhry, Posthuma, & Anand, 2016). However, the empirical investigation on the effects of
focal employees’ i-deals on their coworkers is still in its infancy (Marescaux, De Winne, &
Sels, 2019). Given that i-deals are made in a larger social context, instead of a vacuum context
(Kong, Ho, & Garg, 2020), there is a pressing need to explore how and why coworkers respond
to others’ i-deals. Thus, we advance i-deals literature by investigating the interpersonal implica-
tions of i-deals for the coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors.
Second, this study extends i-deals literature by exploring whether and why different types of
i-deals differently affect coworkers’ acceptance of others’ i-deals. Existing studies have indicated
that different i-deals have different impacts on the recipients (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser,
2008; 2009; Hornung, Rousseau, Weigl, Müller, & Glaser, 2014). And recently, a study by
Marescaux, De Winne, and Sels (2019) showed that the contents of i-deals can also have different
influences on the recipients’ coworkers. Given that the acceptance is an important manifestation
of coworkers’ behavioral reactions toward others’ i-deals and low levels of coworkers’ acceptance
may significantly reduce or even negate the i-deals’ effectiveness (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009),
it is necessary to further investigate the influences of the contents of i-deals on coworkers’ accept-
ance behavior. Thus, we extend i-deals literature by integrating previous research to refine the
understanding of which kind of focal employees’ i-deals is more likely to be accepted by
coworkers.
Third, our contribution pertains to our adding to the limited mediating mechanisms linking
focal employees’ i-deals to coworkers’ reactions from the social comparison perspective. Thus far,
i-deals literature is dominated by mediating mechanisms pertaining to social exchange theory
(Liu et al., 2013; Ng & Feldman, 2015), for explaining why focal employees reciprocate
(Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010; Huo, Luo, & Tam, 2014). A handful of studies
investigating coworkers’ reactions to others’ i-deals have been conducted from equity theory
(Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019; Ng, 2017) or conservation of resources theory (Kong,
Ho, & Garg, 2020). However, due to the within-group heterogeneity nature, i-deals can be sub-
jected to social comparison process, which has strong implications for other group members.
Therefore, extending beyond prior studies, we adopt a comparison perspective to examine
whether upward comparison on i-deals can lead to coworkers’ perceptions of status threat and
obtaining comparable treatment, thus shape their acceptance behavior.
Theory and hypotheses
Idiosyncratic deals, social comparison, and coworkers’ reactions
I-deals are special work arrangements and employment conditions that are negotiated between
employees and their employers to satisfy both parties’ needs and interests (Rousseau, 2001,
2005; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). The within-group heterogeneity nature of i-deals dif-
ferentiates the recipients from other employees, who do similar work or who are in a similar
Journal of Management & Organization 3
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
4. position (Rousseau, 2001). With regard to timing, scope, and content, i-deals take many forms in
practice (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). For example, i-deals can be made during the recruit-
ment process (i.e., ex ante), or during the course of ongoing employment relationships (i.e., ex
post). I-deals also vary in scope, ranging from a minor change to highly customized, from one
element to an entire package. With respect to the content, several kinds of i-deals have been iden-
tified (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2009; Rosen et al., 2013; Rousseau & Kim, 2006). Consistent
with previous research (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008; Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009),
we concentrate on development i-deals and flexibility i-deals due to their common occurrence in
the organizations (Rousseau, 2005).
Comparing the self with others, either consciously or unconsciously, is a pervasive social phe-
nomenon (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Festinger, 1954; Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002; Wheeler &
Miyake, 1992). Festinger (1954) proposed that there exists an inherent drive in human organism
to compare one’s opinions and abilities to others in order to reduce uncertainty and make self-
evaluation when objective standards are not available. Wood (1996) explicitly defined social com-
parison as ‘the process of thinking about information about one or more other people in relation
to the self’ (pp. 520–521), which can influence individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Goodman &
Haisley, 2007; Greenberg, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2007; Wood, 1989). Wood (1996) also
identified multiple processes of social comparison, including acquiring, thinking about, and
reacting to social information. From this respect, social comparison can satisfy individuals’
internal drive to self-evaluate, and orient their social behaviors to protect or improve the selves
(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Festinger, 1954).
Given the non-standard, individualized, and within-group heterogeneity natures of i-deals,
coworkers are likely to engage in an upward comparison process by comparing with the i-dealers
who received more special work terms than themselves (Kong, Ho, & Garg, 2020). Research stud-
ies on social comparison theory have indicated that the effects of comparison may be subjected to
whether individuals contrast or assimilate themselves with the comparison referents (Lam, Van
der Vegt, Walter, & Huang, 2011; Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004). Building on social com-
parison theory and i-deals research, we propose that comparison with focal employees’ develop-
ment i-deals may be more likely to trigger coworkers’ contrast and status threat, while comparing
with focal employees’ flexibility i-deals may be more likely to evoke coworkers’ assimilation and
expectations of getting i-deals. Additionally, we propose coworkers’ LMX relative to the i-dealers
as an important boundary condition in the comparison process. Thus, based on upward compari-
son theory, we below argue how and why various i-deals contents and coworkers’ RLMX influ-
ence coworkers’ perceptions of status threat and obtaining future i-deals in different ways, thus
subsequently shape their acceptance behavior. Figure 1 shows our conceptual model.
Idiosyncratic deals and coworkers’ acceptance
Coworkers’ acceptance refers to coworkers’ assent or approval to focal employees’ i-deals (Lai,
Rousseau, & Chang, 2009). It can ultimately affect the overall effectiveness of i-deals (Lai,
Rousseau, & Chang, 2009; Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019). The overall effectiveness of
i-deals for the organization not only lies in the recipients’ reactions, but also in other coworkers’
acceptance. As we mentioned, although i-deals can facilitate the recipients’ organizational com-
mitment or job performance (Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016), they may also trigger coworkers’
negative behaviors, such as deviant behaviors (Kong, Ho, & Garg, 2020), complaining
(Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019), or even turnover (Ng, 2017). In this study, drawing on
social comparison theory, we propose that focal employees’ development i-deals and flexibility
i-deals may have different impacts on coworkers’ acceptance.
According to social comparison theory, comparisons among employees are ubiquitous in the
organizations (Festinger, 1954; Greenberg, Ashton-James, & Ashkanasy, 2007). Scholars have
noted that individuals generally prefer to compare with others who are thought to be slightly
4 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
5. better off (i.e., upward comparison), supporting Festinger’s (1954) notion of ‘upward drive’
(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Collins, 1996). In the context of i-deals, coworkers’ comparison of
their own versus focal employees’ i-deals may manifest as upward comparison, such that cowor-
kers perceive themselves as receiving less than the focal employees (Guerrero &
Challiol-Jeanblanc, 2016; Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016; Vidyarthi et al., 2016). Previous studies
found that upward comparison may spark peers’ perception of resource threat and subsequent
social undermining (Campbell, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, & Dong, 2017; Reh, Tröster, & Van
Quaquebeke, 2018).
We argue that coworkers are less willing to accept focal employees’ development i-deals than
flexibility i-deals. First, the resources involved in these two types of i-deals shape coworkers’ dif-
ferent reactions. Specifically, development i-deals include the customized opportunities to
develop working skills, enhance professional competencies, and meet personal career aspirations,
which are essential for higher performance, greater occupational success, and larger space for pro-
motion (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008, 2009; Hornung et al., 2014; Rousseau, Ho, &
Greenberg, 2006; Rousseau & Kim, 2006). In contrast, flexibility i-deals provide employees
with discretion to personalize working schedules and working locations to better fit personal
needs (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008, 2009; Hornung et al., 2014; Rousseau, Ho, &
Greenberg, 2006). Prior research studies have shown that flexibility i-deals cannot motive
employees to work late or work engagement, and even may lower supervisor’ evaluation of the
i-dealers’ performance (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008, 2009; Hornung et al., 2011; Liao,
Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016; Rousseau, Hornung, & Kim, 2009). The competition for important
resources may cause individuals’ tendency to compare, thus leading to a variety of strong defen-
sive responses (Festinger, 1954). Given that the resources included in development i-deals are
more valuable than that in flexibility i-deals (Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016), others’ develop-
ment i-deals are more likely to induce coworkers’ perceptions of relative deprivation (Buunk,
Zurriaga, Gonzalez-Roma, & Subirats, 2003) and low acceptance.
Second, individuals tend to compare the resource allocation when the resource is limited
(Parks, Conlon, Ang, & Bontempo, 1999). Thus, given that development i-deals are generally
viewed as a limited resource, while flexibility i-deals are not (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg,
2006), coworkers are more sensitive to others’ development i-deals than flexibility i-deals, and
are more reluctant to accept the former. Providing support for this argument, relevant i-deals
study also showed that when employees perceive others have more development i-deals, they
would suffer a negative emotional experience and then present negative behavior (Kong, Ho,
& Garg, 2020). Based on the above analysis, we thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 Coworkers are more likely to accept focal employees’ flexibility i-deals than devel-
opment i-deals.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
Journal of Management & Organization 5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
6. The mediating role of coworkers’ felt status threat
Social comparison theory indicated that upward comparisons have both their ‘ups and downs’
(Collins, 1996; Mussweiler, 2003; Wood, 1989). In other words, the effects of social comparison
may depend on whether the individuals contrast or assimilate themselves with a comparison tar-
get (Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004). The direction of social comparison may be subject to a
number of variables, and the one critical factor is whether the standard of the target is attainable
or unattainable (Buunk, Collins, Taylor, VanYperen, & Dakof, 1990; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997).
Mussweiler, Ruter, and Epstude (2004) indicated that whether individuals ‘see themselves as far-
ther away or closer to the standard’ could determine whether they chose assimilation or contrast.
Assimilation effects arise if the standard is close, and contrast effects arise if the standard is hard
or unable to reach (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). In the context of i-deals, development i-deals are
often offered as a reward to the employees who have better performance or make special contri-
butions for the organizations (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006), while flexibility i-deals are
often provided for the employees who need to cope with personal difficulties or family crises
(Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2009; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). From this respect,
upward comparisons with others’ development i-deals are more likely to cause contrast effect
among coworkers than comparison with flexibility i-deals, as the standard of requesting develop-
ment i-deals is harder to reach than flexibility i-deals. Based on this rationale, we argue that com-
pared to flexibility i-deals, focal employees’ development i-deals are more likely to trigger
coworkers feeling of status threat.
First, social comparison theory indicates that the internal drive to compare with others allows
individual to assess their relative position within groups (Buunk & Mussweiler, 2001). Status
threat is a subjective cognition of one’s own status (Kellogg, 2012; Zhang, Zhong, & Ozer,
2020). And individuals are sensitive to the signals about the status of their colleagues
(Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015; Reh, Tröster, & Van Quaquebeke, 2018). As we men-
tioned above, flexibility i-deals are typically designed for addressing work–family or life issues
(Las Heras et al., 2017; Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006), and are intended
to ‘retaining the services of a worker at a standard level of performance’ (Hornung, Rousseau,
& Glaser, 2008: 657). To some extent, flexibility i-deals are need-based, which do not signal
one’s relative standing and status in the organization, and thus they are less likely to be the
basis of contrast (Kong, Ho, & Garg, 2020). However, development i-deals convey many strong
signals about the i-dealers’ higher status, such as supervisor’s high value and trust, the recognition
of the i-dealers’ contribution, and the special status in supervisor’s eyes (Rousseau, 2005;
Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006; Vidyarthi et al., 2016). Therefore, development i-deals are par-
ticularly likely to be the basis of contrast, thus inducing coworkers’ feeling of status threat
(Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Collins, 1996; Wills, 1981).
Second, because of the natural tendency to evaluate one’s socially valued attributes, indivi-
duals may upwardly compare with others in the case of ability (Festinger, 1954). Development
i-deals convey the signals about the leader’s identification of the recipients’ competence, and
have been found to serve a competence-signaling function (Ho & Kong, 2015). Hence, com-
pared to flexibility i-deals, development i-deals are more likely to increase the odds of cowor-
kers’ perceiving status threat, especially because development i-deals concern higher working
competence and greater working success (Liu et al., 2013; Ng, 2017; Rousseau, 2005), poten-
tially putting coworkers in a disadvantaged position. Third, development i-deals are a rela-
tively scarce and limited resource, which makes the upward comparison with such i-deals
more salient than comparison with flexibility i-deals (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006).
When the development i-deals are approved to the i-dealers, the availability of such i-deals
for coworkers is reduced, which may further provoke coworkers’ perceptions of status threat
(Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000). We thus
hypothesize that:
6 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
7. Hypothesis 2a Coworkers view focal employees’ development i-deals as more threatening to
their status than flexibility i-deals.
According to social comparison theory, the self-evaluation about one’s relative standing resulted
from social comparison acts as a motivational force guiding their behaviors (Suls, Martin, &
Wheeler, 2002; Wood, 1989). Hence, we argue that coworkers’ perceptions of status threat caused
by the upward comparison between their own versus others’ development i-deals, may further
lead to coworkers’ unwillingness to accept these i-deals. Coworkers’ acceptance of focal employ-
ees’ i-deals means that coworkers assent to the privileges and the customized work arrangements
that focal employees received from the supervisors (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009). Coworkers’
acceptance can affect the final effectiveness of focal employees’ i-deals, and low acceptance may
reduce coworkers’ respect for the i-deal’s principals (i.e., the supervisors) or even erode the
cooperation between the subordinates and the supervisors (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009).
First, the desire for status is a fundamental human motive, and individuals tend to pursue high
status and seek to avoid losing their status (Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015). As the status
is important to one’s self-identification, individuals are sensitive to the information signaling the risk
of losing status (Koski, Xie, & Olson, 2015). And individuals may exhibit strong defensive responses
once they face the risk of losing status (Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015). Prior research stud-
ies have indicated that status threat may lead to negative consequences, such as envy and unfriendly
behaviors (Kemper, 1991; Marr & Thau, 2014; Reh, Tröster, & Van Quaquebeke, 2018). Therefore,
we speculate that as a result of comparison with others’ development i-deals, coworkers’ feeling of
status threat may cause their unacceptance of focal employees’ i-deals.
Second, social comparison theory indicates that when individuals contrast themselves, upward
comparison may threaten one’s self-image and then lead to one’s negative reactions toward the
comparison target (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Collins, 1996; Mussweiler & Strack, 2000). A con-
siderable body of empirical research has indicated that employees may respond negatively when
confronted with someone who are better off. For example, comparison with the targets who do
better in daily work may lead to individuals’ negative psychological states, and subsequent inter-
personal harming behavior (Lam et al., 2011), incivility (Koopman, Lin, Lennard, Matta, &
Johnson, 2020), or ostracism on the comparison targets (Ng, 2017). From this respect, unaccep-
tance of others’ development i-deals may be a social strategy that coworkers use to cope with the
threats to their status and the discomfort resulted from such i-deals. We thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2b Coworkers’ felt status threat mediates the negative relationship between develop-
ment i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance.
The mediating role of coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals
Social comparison theory also indicates that when individuals assimilate themselves with the
comparison targets, upward comparison may increase their assumptions that they can attain
the similarly attractive situation (Collins, 1996; Lockwood, 2002; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda,
2002; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Van der Zee et al., 2000). As noted above, assimilation effect
seems more likely if the standard and the target are attainable or close to reach (Buunk et al.,
1990; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004). Thus, in the context of
i-deals, upward comparisons with others’ flexibility i-deals are more likely to cause assimilation
effects among coworkers than development i-deals, because flexibility i-deals seems easier to
obtain than development i-deals. Based on this rationale, we propose that compared to develop-
ment i-deals, focal employees’ flexibility i-deals are more likely to cause coworkers’ perception of
obtaining future i-deals.
Coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals refers to coworkers’ belief that they will have
opportunities for individualized work arrangements in the future that are comparable with that of
Journal of Management & Organization 7
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
8. the focal employees received (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006).
Opportunities for obtaining similar customized treatment do not mean that coworkers believe
they deserve or need them at present (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Rather, coworkers
believe that in the future, they can successfully negotiate i-deals with their supervisors that are
similar with the focal employees’ i-deals (Huo, Luo, & Tam, 2014; Rousseau, Ho, &
Greenberg, 2006). As we previously mentioned, flexibility i-deals are granted to employees
who need to cope with work–family or life issues, while development i-deals are generally
awarded to high performers (Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Flexibility
i-deals seems more feasible and available for coworkers as negotiating development i-deals
require higher performance, professional skills, or outstanding contributions to the organizations.
From this respect, compared to development i-deals, comparison with focal employees’ flexibility
i-deals may be more likely to be the basis of upward assimilation, thus boosting coworkers’ con-
fidence in attaining the similar i-deals as the i-dealers gained. We thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3a Focal employees’ flexibility i-deals increase coworkers’ perception of obtaining
future i-deals more than development i-deals.
Coworkers are in turn expected to behave in a way that is consistent with their perceptions acti-
vated by upward comparison with others’ flexibility i-deals. This is because coworkers’ self-
perception derived from social comparisons may further shape their behavior (Wood, 1989,
1996). By comparing their own treatment with that of focal employees, coworkers adjust their
behaviors according to the consequence of comparison to maximize the sense of consistency
with their self-perception (Spence, Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2011). Specifically, we argue that cow-
orkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals may be positively related to their acceptance of focal
employees’ i-deals.
First, obtaining future i-deals means the equal opportunities for coworkers to negotiate and
request i-deals, which may lower coworkers’ perception of unfairness to some extent
(Greenberg et al., 2004). In other words, when coworkers believe they have comparable oppor-
tunities to obtain customized arrangements, they may perceive others’ i-deals as fair and accept-
able (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Second, coworkers’ perception of obtaining future
i-deals implies that coworkers may get comparable i-deals from supervisors (Huo, Luo, &
Tam, 2014; Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). With such expect-
ation, coworkers may support focal employees’ i-deals (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). And
the belief that they can benefit from these i-deals may improve coworkers’ acceptance (Bal &
Rousseau, 2015; Greenberg et al., 2004). Besides, previous empirical studies have provided
some evidence for supporting this hypothesis. For example, Lai, Rousseau, and Chang (2009)
indicated that coworkers’ beliefs regarding the likelihood of comparable future opportunity
have a positive effect on their acceptance of others’ i-deals. The study of Huo, Luo, and Tam
(2014) also shown that coworkers’ beliefs about obtaining future i-deals can increase coworkers’
citizenship behaviors for the recipients. Therefore, compared to development i-deals, upward
comparison with focal employees’ flexibility i-deals seems more likely to cause assimilation effects
among coworkers, which may increase coworkers’ beliefs in obtaining similar i-deals in the future
and promote coworkers’ acceptance of others’ i-deals. We thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3b Coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals mediates the positive relation-
ship between flexibility i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance.
The moderating role of coworkers’ relative leader–member exchange
LMX is a dyadic approach to understanding the relationship between an immediate supervisor
and a subordinate (Bauer & Green, 1996; Graen & Scandura, 1987). These dyadic relationships
are built through a series of exchanges and interpersonal interactions (Bauer & Green, 1996;
8 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
9. Graen & Cashman, 1975). As the limited time and resources that the parties invest in the
relationship-building process are different, the members’ exchange relationships with leader in
a group are distinct from each other (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Liden & Graen, 1980;
Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). In other words, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the
same way, but build different types of exchange relationship with each group member (Graen
& Cashman, 1975; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982). According to social comparison the-
ory, individuals may observe, learn, and compare their own LMX relationships with their team-
mates’ LMX relationships (Hu & Liden, 2013). Previous studies have shown that a focal
individual’s LMX relative to the LMXs of other coworkers (relative LMX, or RLMX) can influence
individual’s attitudes and behaviors (Henderson, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2008; Hu &
Liden, 2013; Tse, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2012; Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh,
2010).
Given the triangle of relationships outlined by focal employees, leaders, and coworkers in the
i-deals context, we propose that coworkers’ LMX relative to the focal employees’ LMX may play
an important role in the relationships between focal employees’ i-deals and coworkers’ reactions.
Specifically, we argue that coworkers’ RLMX may weaken the relationship between focal employ-
ees’ development i-deals and coworkers’ felt status threat. First, employees with high RLMX have
greater possibility to get access to the resources and reward from their managers relative to those
with low RLMX (Vidyarthi et al., 2010). Therefore, when focal employees receive customized
work arrangements, high RLMX can reduce the influence of i-deals on coworkers’ status threat.
Second, with high RLMX, individual members tend to feel psychologically close to their leaders
(Hu & Liden, 2013). That is, coworkers with high RLMX may feel confident in their ability to
successfully negotiate special treatment from their supervisors. This perception may effectively
diminish coworkers’ status threat resulted from the comparison with focal employees’ i-deals.
Third, research has indicated that if a member’s RLMX is high, he or she may have a positive
self-concept, and high RLMX can increase individuals’ evaluation of their own self-efficacy
and self- identification (Tse, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2012). Furthermore, coworkers with
high RLMX may keep close and frequent communications with their leaders (Dienesch &
Liden, 1986). This high-quality communication can effectively eliminate coworkers’ negative feel-
ings resulted from that they do not obtained the expected i-deals. Additionally, their leaders may
make strong promise to the coworkers that they will get the same chance as the focal employees’
in the near future if they are qualified, which is likely to lower coworkers’ status threat. Hence, for
the coworkers with high RLMX, the effect of focal employees’ development i-deals on status
threat is weaker than those with low RLMX. We thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4a Coworkers’ RLMX may weaken the positive effect of development i-deals on cow-
orkers’ felt threat status.
In addition, we expect that coworkers’ RLMX can strengthen the relationship between focal
employees’ flexibility i-deals and coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals. First, subor-
dinates with high RLMX tend to actively negotiate their job roles or duties with their leaders
(Graen & Scandura, 1987). Coworkers with high RLMX may have more special privileges, oppor-
tunities, and intrinsic motivations to negotiate discretion over their work arrangements with the
leaders (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005).
Consequently, the positive influence of flexibility i-deals on the perception of obtaining future
i-deals may be stronger for coworkers with high RLMX than those with low RLMX.
Second, given that members with high RLMX tend to evaluate themselves more highly than
those with low RLMX (Tse, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2012), this function of high RLMX
that can improve individual’s self-concept may further strengthen the relationship between the
focal employees’ flexibility i-deals and coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals. We
thus hypothesize that:
Journal of Management & Organization 9
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
10. Hypothesis 4b Coworkers’ RLMX may strengthen the positive effect of flexibility i-deals on
coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals.
Moderated mediation
Furthermore, we argue that coworkers’ RLMX can moderate the indirect effects of different type
of i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance of others’ i-deals via coworkers’ perceptions. As we have sta-
ted above, members with high RLMX may be more likely to access resources and have more
opportunities to negotiate i-deals with supervisors, and these characteristics of high RLMX
may alter coworkers’ reactions toward focal employees’ i-deals. Specifically, different levels of
coworkers’ RLMX is related to how they evaluate themselves, and the levels of self-perception
can weaken or strengthen the influences of focal employees’ i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance
behavior. Following on the preceding discussion regarding hypotheses 2, 3, 4, we contend that,
for coworkers with high RLMX, the indirect effect of development i-deals on coworkers’ accept-
ance via coworkers’ felt status will be weaker, and the indirect effect of flexibility i-deals on cow-
orkers’ acceptance via coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals will be stronger. In
contrast, for coworkers with low RLMX, the indirect effect of development i-deals on coworkers’
acceptance via coworkers’ felt status will be stronger, and the indirect effect of flexibility i-deals on
coworkers’ acceptance via coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals will be weaker.
We thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5a The indirect effect of development i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance, via
coworker’ felt threat status, is moderated by coworkers’ RLMX, such that this effect is weaker
when coworkers’ RLMX is high, but stronger when coworkers’ RLMX is low.
Hypothesis 5b The indirect effect of flexibility i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance, via coworker’
perception of obtaining future i-deals, is moderated by coworkers’ RLMX, such that this effect
is stronger when coworkers’ LMX is high, but weaker when coworkers’ LMX is low.
Method
Sample and procedure
The participants in this study were from a large Internet company in China. Before we started our
research in this company, we interviewed 13 supervisors and 20 employees. The interviews
demonstrated that this company was appropriate to conduct our surveys because its employees
had discretion over their working hours and career development. We conducted a large-scale sur-
vey after obtaining permission from the CEO of the company. Two members with similar work
background and responsibilities in each working group were chosen by the human resource (HR)
department to create a focal employee–coworker pair, as they can observe the other’s customized
work arrangements easily. And we used a four-digit code to match each of them.
Participants were invited into a conference room, and sit separately. We distributed pens,
printed surveys, and gift incentives, and introduced the purpose and procedures of the survey.
All participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential, and only be used
for research purposes. After completing the questionnaires, the participants put them in sealed
envelopes and handed the envelopes to the researchers. Participants received an extra bonus in
exchange for completing all surveys.
To reduce potential common method bias, we collected three waves of data. The time lag
between each survey was 1 month. At time 1, focal employees reported their LMX.
Meanwhile, coworkers reported their observation of focal employees’ i-deals, completed the mea-
sures of their LMX and other control variables. At time 2, we asked coworkers to report the vari-
ables of felt status threat and perception of obtaining future i-deals. At time 3, coworkers reported
their willingness to accept others’ i-deals.
10 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
11. In wave 1, we distributed 473 focal employee questionnaires, and received 288 completed ques-
tionnaires. At the same time, we distributed 473 coworker questionnaires, and received 412 com-
pleted forms. In wave 2, we distributed questionnaires to these 412 coworkers who had submitted
valid questionnaires in wave 1, and 325 returned completed questionnaires. In wave 3, coworker
questionnaires were distributed to these 325 participants, and received 255 valid questionnaires.
At the completion of the three waves’ data-collection procedure, we got 253 focal employee–
coworker pairs of valid data by matching the four-digit code (53.49% of the initial sample).
Overall, 49% of the participants were male, and the average age of participants was 31.71.
Their average organizational tenure was 7.13 years. In terms of education, 13.83% held less
than a bachelor’s degree. With regard to the position, 28.06% were in management positions.
Measures
Since all the measures were originally constructed in English, we used the back-translation
method to translate all the items. We recruited two PhD candidates to translate the items into
Chinese and then translated them back into English (Brislin, 1980). All items were measured
on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree or not at all) to 7 (completely
agree or to a very great extent).
Idiosyncratic deals
We used the scales developed by Rousseau and Kim (2006) to measure development i-deals and
flexibility i-deals. Development i-deals were assessed using a four-item scale (α = .96). A sample
item is, ‘to what extent have your colleague A asked for and successfully negotiated for training
opportunities?’ Flexibility i-deals were assessed using a two-item scale (α = .94). A sample item is,
‘to what extent have your colleague A asked for and successfully negotiated for flexibility on start-
ing and ending the workday?’
Coworkers’ felt status threat
We adapted a four-item scale from Zhang, Zhong, and Ozer (2020) to assess the degree of cow-
orkers’ feelings of status threat within the group. A sample item is, ‘I have felt some colleagues
colluded to challenge my status in the team’ (α = .95).
Coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals
Coworkers reported their perception of the possibility of obtaining future i-deals using a two-item
scale from Lai, Rousseau, and Chang (2009). A sample item is, ‘I can have the same special indi-
vidual arrangements as my coworkers if I ask’ (α = .94).
Coworkers’ acceptance
Coworkers’ acceptance of others’ i-deals was assessed using the item from Lai, Rousseau, and
Chang (2009): ‘If your colleagues ask for special individual arrangements in the near future, to
what extent would you be willing to accept them having arrangements different from your own?’
RLMX
RLMX was obtained from coworkers’ LMX, which was measure by using Scandura and Graen’s
(1984) seven-item scale (α = .95). A sample item is, ‘How well do you feel that your immediate
supervisor understands your problems and needs?’ Differing from prior studies, we adapted the
operationalization of RLMX on the basis of the studies of Henderson et al. (2008) and Tse,
Ashkanasy, and Dasborough (2012), which calculate RLMX by subtracting the mean LMX within
the team from the LMX of focal employee. With a slightly different method, we subtracted the
score of a focal employee’s LMX from a coworker’s LMX score. This is because our study
Journal of Management & Organization 11
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
12. confined RLMX within a focal employee–coworker pair and we focused on the LMX difference at
the individual–individual level.
Control variables
Previous research has suggested that coworkers’ reactions to others’ i-deals can be influenced by
the personal relationship between the coworker and the i-dealer (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009).
Thus, we included coworkers’ team member exchange (coworkers’ TMX) as a control variable,
using a six-item scale from Sherony and Green (2002) to measure the exchange relationships
among coworkers who report to the same supervisor (α = .92). A sample item is, ‘How well do
you feel that your colleagues understand your problems and needs?’ Besides, given that focal
employees’ LMX has been found to be associated with leaders’ authorization of i-deals, thus
we also set focal employees’ LMX as a control variable. We measured focal employees’ LMX
(α = .95) using the scale developed by Scandura and Graen (1984). In addition, according to
present studies (Lai, Rousseau, & Chang, 2009; Liu et al., 2013), we controlled for employee
demographics, including age, gender, education, organizational tenure, and position.
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
We analyzed the data using Mplus 7. Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted a confirmatory
factor analysis to evaluate the discriminant validity of the key variables in our model (focal
employees’ development i-deals, flexibility i-deals, coworkers’ LMX, focal employees’ LMX, cow-
orkers’ felt status threat, and coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals). As shown in
Table 1, the proposed six-factor model showed a good overall measurement fit with χ2
/df =
1.169, comparative fit index (CFI) = .993, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .991, and
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .026. We also tested five alternative models
to assess discriminant validity. The fit indices in Table 1 show that the proposed six-factor model
fits the data better than any of the alternative models. The means, standard deviations, and cor-
relations of all key variables are given in Table 2.
Hypothesis testing
We used structural equation model to test all the hypotheses except for moderating effects.
Figure 2 shows the standardized path estimates for this model. Coworkers’ gender, age, educa-
tional level, tenure, position, TMX, and focal employees’ LMX were included in the model as con-
trol variables. Hypothesis 1 proposed that coworkers are more likely to accept focal employees’
flexibility i-deals than development i-deals. The results show that development i-deals have a
negative effect on coworkers’ acceptance (b = −.155, p < .001), meanwhile flexibility i-deals
have a positive effect on coworkers’ acceptance (b = .197, p < .01). Thus, hypothesis 1 was
supported.
Hypothesis 2a proposed that coworkers view focal employees’ development i-deals as more
threatening to their status than flexibility i-deals. The results indicate that focal employees’ devel-
opment i-deals have a positive effect on coworkers’ felt status threat (b = .282, p < .01), while flexi-
bility have no significant effect on coworkers’ felt status threat (b = .106, n.s.). Therefore,
hypothesis 2a was supported. Hypothesis 3a proposed that focal employees’ flexibility i-deals
increase coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals more than development i-deals. The
results indicate that flexibility i-deals have a positive effect on coworkers’ perception of obtaining
future i-deals (b = .446, p < .001), while development i-deals have no significant effect on cowor-
kers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals (b = −.051, n.s.). Hence, hypothesis 3a was supported.
12 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
13. We conducted further bootstrapping analyses to test the mediating effects. Hypothesis 2b pre-
dicted the mediating role of coworkers’ felt status threat in the relationship between focal employ-
ees’ development i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance, and hypothesis 3b predicted the mediating
role of coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals in the relationship between flexibility
i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance. Table 3 lists the estimates of stage I effects (independent vari-
able [IV] → mediator [Me]), stage II effects (Me → dependent variable [DV]), and indirect effects
(IV → Me → DV). As hypothesized, coworkers’ felt status threat exerted significant mediation
effects on the relationship between development i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance (indirect
effect = −.035, 95% CI = [−.073, −.016]), and coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals
exerted significant mediation effects on the relationship between flexibility i-deals and coworkers’
acceptance (indirect effect = .106, 95% CI = [.041, .199]). Thus, hypotheses 2b and 3b were
supported.
In addition, we tested how coworkers’ RLMX moderates the effects of development i-deals on
coworkers’ felt status threat and flexibility i-deals on coworkers’ perception of obtaining future
i-deals by conducting bootstrapping analyses. Hypothesis 4a predicted that coworkers’ RLMX
may weaken the positive effect of development i-deals on coworkers’ felt status threat. The results
in Table 4 show that the interaction effect of coworkers’ RLMX and development i-deals on
coworkers’ felt status threat was significant with a coefficient of −.112 (SE = .042, p < .01).
The coefficient of the effect of development i-deals on coworkers’ felt status threat was .496
(SE = .126, p < .001) when RLMX was low, and .271 (SE = .104, p < .01) when RLMX was high
(see Figure 3). Thus, hypothesis 4a was supported.
Hypothesis 4b predicted that coworkers’ RLMX may strengthen the positive effect of flexibility
i-deals on coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals. The results in Table 4 show that
the interaction effect of coworkers’ RLMX and flexibility i-deals on coworkers’ perception of
obtaining future i-deals was significant ( p < .01), with a coefficient of .086 (SE = .033). The
effect of flexibility i-deals on coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals was .297
(SE = .114, p < .01) when RLMX was low, and .470 (SE = .112, p < .001) when RLMX was high
(see Figure 4). Thus, hypothesis 4b was supported.
Furthermore, we examined the moderating role of coworkers’ RLMX on the mediating effects
of coworker’ felt threat status and coworker’ perception of obtaining future i-deals by conducting
further bootstrapping analyses. Hypothesis 5a predicted that coworkers’ RLMX may weaken the
indirect effect of development i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance via coworker’ felt threat status,
and hypothesis 5b predicted that coworkers’ RLMX may strengthen the indirect effect of flexibil-
ity i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance via coworker’ perception of obtaining future i-deals.
As shown in Table 5, the mediating effect of coworker’ felt status threat was moderated by
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis
Model χ2
df χ2
/df CFI TLI RMSEA
Six-factor model 332.019 284 1.169 .993 .991 .026
Five-factor model 786.405 289 2.721 .923 .913 .082
Four-factor model 2,539.462 293 8.667 .651 .613 .174
Three-factor model 3,641.692 296 12.303 .481 .430 .211
Two-factor model 4,032.484 298 13.532 .420 .368 .223
One-factor model 5,053.893 299 16.903 .262 .198 .251
DI, development i-deals; FI, flexibility i-deals; TS, coworkers’ felt status threat; OF, coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals; CLMX,
coworkers’ LMX; FLMX, focal employees’ LMX.
Note: Six-factor model = DI, FI, TS, OF, FLMX, and CLMX; five-factor model = DI + FI, TS, OF, CLMX, and FLMX; four-factor model = DI + FI + CLMX,
TS, OF, and FLMX; three-factor model = DI + FI + CLMX + FLMX, TS, and OF; two-factor model = DI + FI + CLMX + FLMX, and TS + OF; one-factor
model = DI + FI + CLMX + FLMX + TS + OF.
Journal of Management & Organization 13
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
15. coworkers’ RLMX (difference = .021, 95% CI = [.003, .043]), in support hypothesis 5a. Similarly,
the mediating effect of coworker’ perception of obtaining future i-deals was also moderated by
coworkers’ RLMX (difference = .038, 95% CI = [.007, .089]), supporting hypothesis 5b.
Fig. 2. Hypothesized structural model. Solid lines represent paths that were significant and dashed lines represent paths
that were nonsignificant. Numbers are standardized estimates. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 3. Bootstrapping results for mediation tests
Hypotheses
Stage I
effect
Stage II
effect Indirect effect
Hypothesis 2b: Development i-deals → coworkers’ felt
status threat → coworkers’ acceptance
.305*** −.114** −.035* [−.073, −.016]
Hypothesis 3b: Flexibility i-deals → coworkers’ perception
of obtaining future i-deals → coworkers’ acceptance
.422*** .251** .106** [.041, .199]
Note: N = 253. The square brackets show 95% confidence intervals.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Table 4. Moderating effects of coworkers’ RLMX
Variables
Coworkers’ felt status
threat
Coworkers’ perception of
obtaining future i-deals
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Development i-deals .383*** .108
Flexibility i-deals .348*** .077
Coworkers’ RLMX −.271** .064 .029 .035
Development i-deals × Coworkers’ RLMX −.112** .042
Flexibility i-deals × Coworkers’ RLMX .086** .033
Note: N = 253.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Journal of Management & Organization 15
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
16. Discussion
Based on social comparison theory, we advanced and examined a model that explained how focal
employees’ i-deals influence coworkers’ acceptance of these i-deals. We found that coworkers are
more likely to accept focal employees’ flexibility i-deals than development i-deals. More specific-
ally, coworkers viewed focal employees’ development i-deals as more threatening to their status
than flexibility i-deals. Coworkers’ felt status threat mediates the negative relationship between
Fig. 3. The interactive effect of development i-deals and coworkers’ RLMX on coworkers’ felt status threat.
Fig. 4. The interactive effect of flexibility i-deals and coworkers’ RLMX on coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals.
16 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
17. development i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance. In addition, focal employees’ flexibility i-deals
can increase coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals more than development i-deals.
This perception mediates the positive relationship between flexibility i-deals and coworkers’
acceptance. Furthermore, we also examined the moderating role of coworkers’ RLMX. The results
show that coworkers’ RLMX weakens the indirect effect of focal employees’ development i-deals
on coworkers’ acceptance, through coworkers’ feeling of status threat, and strengthens the indirect
effect of focal employees’ flexibility i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance, through coworkers’ percep-
tion of obtaining future i-deals.
Theoretical implications
Our research makes three theoretical contributions to the literature. First, this study enriches
i-deals literature by examining the effects of i-deals from coworkers’ perspective. Previous studies
on i-deals mostly focus on how i-deals exercise an influence on the attitudinal and behavioral out-
comes from the recipients’ perspective. However, according to Rousseau and her colleagues
(Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006), an i-deal’s final effectiveness is decided
by a triangle of relationships including focal employees, their supervisors, and their coworkers.
And Greenberg et al. (2004) indicated that focal employees’ i-deals can elicit coworkers’ responses
because of the within-group heterogeneity of i-deals. Therefore, in order to fully understand the
influences of i-deals, we need to consider coworkers’ psychological and behavioral reactions to
focal employees’ i-deals. In fact, some scholars (Las Heras et al., 2017; Ng & Lucianetti, 2016;
Vidyarthi et al., 2016) have called for relevant i-deals studies to take account of coworkers and
explore the efficacy of focal employees’ i-deals from coworkers’ perspective.
The second theoretical implication relates to our focus on how and why different types of
i-deals influence coworkers’ acceptance differently, refining our understanding of coworkers’
i-deals acceptance. Existing research has indicated that the effects of different i-deals on focal
employees are distinct (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008, 2009; Hornung et al., 2014; Rosen
et al., 2013). For example, flexible working hours can reduce the conflict between work and pri-
vate life, while training opportunities can promote working skills. Recently, the results of a study
by Marescaux, De Winne, and Sels (2019) also showed that focal employees’ different types of
i-deals have different effects on coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors. With those in mind, we
integrated past research and examined whether and how focal employees’ development i-deals
and flexibility i-deals impact coworkers’ self-perceptions and acceptance behaviors differently.
Thus, this study contributes to the literature by refining which type of focal employees’ i-deals
is more acceptable for coworkers.
Table 5. Indirect effect comparison between high- and low-RLMX employees
Indirect paths
Indirect effect for
low-coworkers’ RLMX
Indirect effect for
high-coworkers’ RLMX
Low-high group
comparison of
indirect effect
Development i-deals →
coworkers’ felt status
threat → coworkers’
acceptance
−.045** [−.095, −.019] −.024* [−.059, −.008] .021* [.003, .043]
Flexibility i-deals →
coworkers’ perception
of obtaining future
i-deals → coworkers’
acceptance
.057* [.014, .142] .095** [.042, .169] .038* [.007, .089]
Note: N = 253. The square brackets show 95% confidence intervals.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Journal of Management & Organization 17
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
18. Finally, this study extends i-deals literature by testing a theoretical model based on social com-
parison theory. In previous research, i-deals have been studied using the reciprocity mechanism
based on social exchange theory (Anand et al., 2010; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006), the
motivator of pursuit of equity (Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2019; Ng, 2017), or the role of
resources (Kong, Ho, & Garg, 2020). Many scholars have called for more research to drill
down into the mechanisms through which i-deals have an impact on outcomes from different
the theoretical perspectives (Bal & Rousseau, 2015; Liao, Wayne, & Rousseau, 2016).
According to social comparison theory, coworkers will naturally compare their own working con-
ditions with focal employees’ i-deals. Thus, we respond to the call of Guerrero and
Challiol-Jeanblanc (2016) by developing a theoretical framework that explains how social com-
parison shapes coworkers’ reactions to others’ i-deals.
Practical implications
This study has provided insights for both managers and employees. First, this study explores an
issue concerning i-deals that managers usually overlook: even though i-deals might benefit focal
employees, what are their coworkers’ hidden psychological consequences of observing their
i-deals. We gathered evidence that focal employees’ flexibility i-deals are more acceptable for cow-
orkers than development i-deals. Our finding can help managers understand the influence of
i-deals in depth by suggesting that focal employees do not exist in a vacuum, and the coworkers
will inevitably compare their own treatment with that of focal employees. Thus, managers need to
perform a balanced analysis of costs and benefits, then make a very deliberate decision when
granting i-deals.
Second, this study indicates that focal employees’ development i-deals might cause coworkers’
feeling of status threat and backlash, thus lead to coworkers’ unwillingness to accept others’
i-deals. It is crucial for supervisors to manage i-deals properly to make full use of its effectiveness
and avoid its potential side effects. Therefore, managers can build high-quality relationships with
subordinates by providing organizational support and developing mutual trust. Besides, it will be
useful to set up an official channel for communication, which is expected to create a context of
justice and fairness. Through this channel, managers negotiate i-deals with employees and dis-
close information about those i-deals. In addition, our finding also suggests that focal employees’
flexibility i-deals may cause coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals, which is positively
related to coworkers’ acceptance. Thus, it will be helpful that managers make credible assurances
of providing comparable opportunities for i-deals when coworkers need in order to minimize
their backlash.
Third, this study revealed coworkers’ potential psychological reactions when they observed
focal employees’ i-deals. Focal employees should realize that their customized work arrangement
might have an adverse effect on their coworkers. And given that they play a crucial role in com-
municating with coworkers, focal employees could make efforts to dispel coworkers’ perception
of unfairness or feeling of status threat resulted from the i-deals. For example, the recipients can
actively build and maintain a good relationship with their coworkers to improve coworkers’ will-
ingness to accept their i-deals. Besides, providing some support, showing helping behavior or
organizational citizenship behavior, and sharing useful information may be effective on increase
coworkers’ approval.
Limitations and future research
Our study may have several potential limitations. First, based on social comparison theory, we
proposed that upward comparison with focal employees’ development i-deals may cause cowor-
kers’ felt status threat and lower their willingness to accept others’ i-deals. However, upward com-
parison sometimes may also serve a self-enhancement function (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Collins,
1996). That is, upward comparison with focal employees’ i-deals may provide motivation for
18 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
19. coworkers to improve themselves to pursue such development i-deals. However, whether the self-
enhancement motivation can facilitate coworkers’ acceptance of others’ i-deals is an interesting
issue needed to explore. Research has indicated that when coworkers believe they can benefit
from others’ i-deals, they may be willing to approve such i-deals (Bal & Rousseau, 2015;
Greenberg et al., 2004). Therefore, future research is encouraged to adopt the self-improvement
function of social comparison theory to explore the influence of focal employees’ i-deals on cow-
orkers’ self-enhancement motive and perception of benefit, and further on coworkers’ acceptance
behavior.
Second, we argued that coworkers’ LMX relative to the focal employees’ LMX may play a mod-
erating role in the relationships between focal employees’ i-deals and coworkers’ reactions.
Indeed, the results of our study also support our arguments. However, we neglected that even
though high RLMX are characterized by more opportunities to negotiate i-deals and higher
resources, whether coworkers with high RLMX may feel being betrayed by their leaders and
feel their leaders as unfair when they observe focal employees’ i-deals. And how this psychological
letdown affects the coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors toward their leaders need further study
and exploration.
Third, based on social comparison theory, our study introduced coworkers’ felt status threat
and perception of obtaining future i-deals as the theoretically driven mediators of the relation-
ships between focal employees’ i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance. There may exist other media-
tors that could affect coworkers’ behaviors or reactions toward focal employees and focal
employees’ i-deals based on different theoretical perspective. For example, from the view point
of equity theory, focal employees’ i-deals may lead to coworkers’ perception of unfairness, and
thus affect coworkers’ behaviors. In addition, based on the perspective of social learning, cowor-
kers’ admiration or envy elicited by others’ i-deals may facilitate their learning from i-deals reci-
pients. Future research should conduct more studies to explore coworkers’ reactions to others’
i-deals on the basis of different theory.
Conclusion
In this research, based on social comparison theory, we examined the influence of focal employ-
ees’ development i-deals and flexibility i-deals on coworkers’ acceptance. We found that cowor-
kers’ felt status threat can mediate the negative relationship between development i-deals and
coworkers’ acceptance. And coworkers’ perception of obtaining future i-deals can mediate the
positive relationship between flexibility i-deals and coworkers’ acceptance. Furthermore, cowor-
kers’ RLMX plays a moderating role. Overall, our study suggests that coworkers are more likely to
accept focal employees’ flexibility i-deals than development i-deals.
Acknowledgements. Our research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2020YJS070),
Beijing Jiaotong University Science and Technology Funding (2018JBWZB003) and China Ministry of Education Young
Scholar Research Funding (20YJC630162).
References
Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor quality relationships: Idiosyncratic
deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 970–988.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the
empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.
Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Motivating employees to work beyond retirement: A
multi-level study of the role of i-deals and unit climate. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 306–331.
Bal, M. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2015). Idiosyncratic deals between employees and organizations: Conceptual issues, applications,
and the role of coworkers. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567.
Journal of Management & Organization 19
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
20. Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social com-
parison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 149–186). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 349–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., & Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social
comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1238–1249.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3–21.
Buunk, B. P., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). New directions in social comparison research. European Journal of Social Psychology,
31(5), 467–475.
Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Subirats, M. (2003). Engaging in upward and downward comparisons as a
determinant of relative deprivation at work: A longitudinal study. Journal of vocational behavior, 62(2), 370–388.
Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social
consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845–866.
Cappelli, P. (2000). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 103–111.
Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin,
119(1), 51–69.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development.
Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(7), 117–140.
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.
Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental
approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader–member exchange and job design on product-
ivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 109–131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member
exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 203–214.
Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22–41.
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 (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Guerrero, S., & Challiol-Jeanblanc, H. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals and helping behavior: The moderating role of i-deal
opportunity for co-workers. Journal of Business & Psychology, 31(3), 433–443.
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation,
and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208–1219.
Ho, V. T., & Kong, D. T. (2015). Exploring the signaling function of idiosyncratic deals and their interaction. Organization
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 149–161.
Hornung, S., Glaser, J., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010a). Interdependence as an i-deal: Enhancing job autonomy and distributive
justice via individual negotiation. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 24(2), 108–129.
Hornung, S., Glaser, J., Rousseau, D. M., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2011). Employee-oriented leadership and quality of work-
ing life: Mediating roles of idiosyncratic deals. Psychological Reports, 108(1), 59–74.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655–664.
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.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010b). Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign:
Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 187–215.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Weigl, M., Müller, A., & Glaser, J. (2014). Redesigning work through idiosyncratic deals.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 608–626.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison
impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 127–172.
Huo, W., Luo, J., & Tam, K. L. (2014). Idiosyncratic deals and good citizens in China: The role of traditionality for recipients
and their coworkers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(22), 3157–3177.
Kellogg, K. C. (2012). Making the cut: Using status-based countertactics to block social movement implementation and
microinstitutional change in surgery. Organization Science, 23(6), 1546–1570.
20 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
21. Kemper, T. D. (1991). Predicting emotions from social relations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(4), 330–342.
Kong, D. T., Ho, V. T., & Garg, S. (2020). Employee and coworker idiosyncratic deals: Implications for emotional exhaustion
and deviant behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 164, 593–609.
Koopman, J., Lin, S.-H. (Joanna), Lennard, A. C., Matta, F. K., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). My coworkers are treated more fairly
than me! A self-regulatory perspective on justice social comparisons. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 857–880.
Koski, J. E., Xie, H. L., & Olson, I. R. (2015). Understanding social hierarchies: The neural and psychological foundations of
status perception. Social Neuroscience, 10, 527–550.
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.
Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective
on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588–601.
Las Heras, M., Rofcanin, Y., Matthijs Bal, P., & Stollberger, J. (2017). How do flexibility i-deals relate to work performance?
Exploring the roles of family performance and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8),
1280–1294.
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(Suppl. 1), S9–S29.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 23(3), 451–465.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Springer.
Liu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., & Wu, L. Z. (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.
Lockwood, P. (2002). Could it happen to you? Predicting the impact of downward comparisons on the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 343–358.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines
who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2019). Idiosyncratic deals from a distributive justice perspective: Examining
co-workers’ voice behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 263–281.
Marr, J. C., & Thau, S. (2014). Falling from great (and not so great) heights: How initial status position influences perform-
ance after status loss. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 223–248.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). ‘Everything is relative’: Comparison processes in social judgment. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 33(6), 719–733.
Mussweiler, T., Ruter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and
contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 832–844.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The ‘relative self’: informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 23–38.
Ng, T. W. H. (2017). Can idiosyncratic deals promote perceptions of competitive climate, felt ostracism, and turnover?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 118–131.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
76(3), 419–427.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Idiosyncratic deals and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41(3), 893–928.
Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Goal striving, idiosyncratic deals, and job behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37
(1), 41–60.
Parks, J. M., Conlon, D. E., Ang, S., & Bontempo, R. (1999). The manager giveth, the manager taketh away: Variation in
distribution/recovery rules due to resource type and cultural orientation. Journal of Management, 25(5), 723–757.
Reh, S., Tröster, C., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts
coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399–415.
Rosen, C. C., Slater, D. J., Chang, C. H., & 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.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness? Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 260–273.
Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of
Management Review, 31(4), 977–994.
Rousseau, D. M., Hornung, S., & Kim, T. G. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Testing propositions on timing, content, and the
employment relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 338–348.
Rousseau, D. M., & Kim, T. G. (2006). When workers bargain for themselves: Idiosyncratic deals and the nature of the employ-
ment relationship. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference, Belfast, Ireland.
Journal of Management & Organization 21
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
22. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a lead-
ership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436.
Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader–member exchange, and
work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 542–548.
Spence, J. R., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2011). Understanding daily citizenship behaviors: A social comparison
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 547–571.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163.
Tse, H. H. M., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2012). Relative leader–member exchange, negative affectivity and
social identification: A moderated-mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 354–366.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Van der Zee, K., Buunk, B., Sanderman, R., Botke, G., & van den Bergh, F. (2000). Social comparison and coping with cancer
treatment. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(1), 17–34.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader–
member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849–861.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Singh, S., Erdogan, B., Chaudhry, A., Posthuma, R., & Anand, S. (2016). Individual deals within teams:
Investigating the role of relative i-deals for employee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1536–1552.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social
exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5),
760–773.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245–271.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2),
231–248.
Wood, J. V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5),
520–537.
Zhang, G., Zhong, J., & Ozer, M. (2020). Status threat and ethical leadership: A power-dependence perspective. Journal of
Business Ethics, 161, 665–685.
Cite this article: Zhang X, Wu W, Wu W, Zhang Y, Xia Y (2020). Are your gains threat or chance for me? A social com-
parison perspective on idiosyncratic deals and coworkers’ acceptance. Journal of Management & Organization 1–22. https://
doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
22 Xiaoyan Zhang et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.32
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 22 Nov 2020 at 04:41:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
