Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51083161
CITATIONS READS
19 744
5 authors, including:
Matthias Weigl
Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich
92 PUBLICATIONS 1,106 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Juergen Glaser on 13 October 2014.
Department of Management and Marketing Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Social, and Environmental Medicine
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich
DENISE M. ROUSSEAU PETER ANGERER, MATTHIAS WEIGL
Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational,
Tepper School of Business Social, and Environmental Medicine
Carnegie Mellon University Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich
over their working times. While idiosyncratic deals can be negotiated with
a range of organizational agents possessing the authority to grant such
nonstandard conditions (e.g., human resource representatives, higher-
level managers), previous research has stressed the importance of direct
supervisors as bargaining partners for employees in obtaining idiosyn-
cratic deals (Rousseau, 2005; Hornung, et al., 2009). For instance, a recent
study suggests that the quality of the leader-member exchange relation-
ship increases opportunities for workers to negotiate for more favorable
task characteristics (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010).
Specifying and extending these earlier findings, it is hereby suggested
that openness to authorize and manage diverse types of working arrange-
ments corresponding to different employees’ personal needs is a mani-
festation of employee-oriented leadership. This assumption is reflected in
Hypothesis 1, postulating that leaders’ consideration will be positively re-
lated to the extent to which workers negotiate both development idiosyn-
cratic deals (H1a) and flexibility idiosyncratic deals (H1b).
Development and flexibility deals are expected to have different im-
plications for employees’ quality of working life, two important indicators
of which are work engagement and work-family conflict (Rossi, Perrewé,
& Sauter, 2006). Conceptualized as a salutogenic antipode to job burn-
out, engagement refers to work-related well-being, characterized by posi-
tive affective-cognitive states of vigor, dedication, and absorption at work
(Durán, Extremera, & Rey, 2004; Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008).
Work-family conflict refers to potentially stressful interference in one’s
family life given time requirements of the job (�����������������������
Netemeyer, Boles, & Mc-
Nurrian, 1996; �����������������������������������������������������������
Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 1999). In the present study, qual-
ity of working life thus is conceptualized as the extent to which one’s job
promotes positive experiences at work and allows balancing professional
and family demands (Rossi, et al., 2006). Regarding the differential effects
of the two investigated types of personalized arrangements, this study
builds on previous research. In an earlier investigation of idiosyncratic
deals among clerical workers in German public administration, it has been
shown that developmental arrangements tend to increase involvement in
the job and the organization, whereas personal flexibility can reduce in-
terference between work and private life (Hornung, et al., 2008). Seeking
to replicate and validate these previous results in a different occupation-
al context, Hypothesis 2 postulated that development idiosyncratic deals
will be positively related to work engagement (H2a) and flexibility idiosyn-
cratic deals will be negatively related to work-family conflict (H2b).
Above it has been suggested that idiosyncratic deals might act as a
link between employee-oriented leadership and followers’ quality of
working life. That is, authorizing such special terms is evidence of a lead-
62 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.
TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Correlations in Wave 2 (N = 142)
M SD r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Femalea
2. Age, yr. 38.8 9.2 −.17†
3. Tenure, yr. 8.1 7.2 −.13 .80‡
4. Part-timea .41‡ .11 .09
5. Positiona −.24‡ .73‡ .65‡ −.15
6. Leader Consideration 3.3 0.6 .01 −.38‡ −.31‡ −.07 −.22‡
7. Development Idiosyncratic
deals 2.1 1.3 −.03 −.03 −.02 .03 .11 .34‡
8. Flexibility Idiosyncratic
deals 1.7 1.2 .16 .06 .14 .43‡ .03 .24‡ .49‡
9. Work Engagement 4.9 0.9 −.11 −.03 −.00 −.26‡ .18† .29‡ .17† .08
10. Work-family Conflict 3.7 0.8 −.05 −.10 −.14 −.19† .01 −.12 .02 −.14 .01
a
Categorical variables (see sample description). †p < .05. ‡p < .01.
Scale Analysis
Two-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to establish
the factorial validity of the scales. Goodness-of-fit indices are provided
in Table 4. In a first step, the idiosyncratic deals scale was tested. A two-
factor model (CFA 1) for Development Idiosyncratic deals (3 items) and
Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals (3 items) fit the data well. A one-factor solu-
tion (CFA 2) resulted in unacceptable fit, thereby supporting discriminant
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order
Correlations in Longitudinal Sample (N = 91)
M SD r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Leader Consideration T1 3.1 0.7
2. Leader Consideration T2 3.1 0.7 .60‡
3. Development Idiosyncratic
deals T1 1.9 1.3 .21† .05
4. Development Idiosyncratic
deals T2 2.0 1.3 .26† .31‡ .50‡
5. Flexibility Idiosyncratic
deals T1 1.7 1.2 .17 .09 .72‡ .37‡
6. Flexibility Idiosyncratic
deals T2 1.8 1.2 .19 .28‡ .41‡ .59‡ .52‡
7. Work Engagement T1 5.2 0.8 .24† .16 .27‡ .21† .11 .17
8. Work Engagement T2 5.0 0.9 .29‡ .42‡ .27‡ .32‡ .08 .16 .64‡
9. Work-family Conflict T1 3.7 0.8 .09 .08 −.01 −.02 −.24† −.15 .14 .05
10. Work-family Conflict T2 3.7 0.7 −.10 −.09 .05 .00 −.12 −.08 .26† .06 .65‡
†p < .05. ‡p < .01.
66 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.
TABLE 4
Goodness-of-fit Indices (N = 159/142)
c² df c²/df IFI TLI CFI RMSEA
CFA 1: Idiosyncratic deals (2 factors) 34.38‡ 16 2.21 .98 .93 .98 .06
CFA 2: Idiosyncratic deals (1 factor) 201.88‡ 18 11.22 .77 .44 .76 .19
CFA 3: Other constructsa (3 factors) 330.68‡ 174 1.90 .95 .93 .95 .06
CFA 4: Other constructs a (1 factor) 2,113.39‡ 180 11.74 .38 .16 .37 .19
CFA 5: All constructs (5 factors) 562.36‡ 358 1.57 .95 .93 .95 .04
CFA 6: All constructs (1 factor) 3,049.41‡ 378 8.07 .33 .17 .32 .15
SEM 1: Full mediation modelb 909.07‡ 546 1.67 .93 .90 .92 .05
SEM 2: Partial mediation model 1c 906.61‡ 544 1.67 .93 .90 .92 .05
SEM 3: Partial mediation model 2d 900.30‡ 544 1.66 .93 .90 .92 .05
Note.—Two-group analysis; c² = chi-squared discrepancy, df = degrees of freedom, c²/df = rela-
tive chi square, IFI = Incremental Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis Index, CFI = Comparative Fit
Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; aLeader Consideration, Work-
family Conflict, and Work Engagement; bPath estimates for this model (including control
variables) are shown in Table 5; cAdditional path from Leader Consideration on Work-family
Conflict (Wave 1: β = .10, p > .05; Wave 2: β = −.12, p > .05); chi-squared difference between SEM
1 and 2: Δc²(2) = 2.46, p > .05; dadditional path from Leader Consideration on Work Engage-
ment (Wave 1: β = .13, p > .05; Wave 2: β = .27, p < .05); chi-squared difference between SEM 1
and 3: Δc²(2) = 8.77, p < .05. ‡p < .01.
validity of the two types. Next, a three-factor model (CFA 3) for Leader
Consideration (7 items), Work-family Conflict (5 items), and Work En-
gagement (3 item parcels) was tested. Following common practice, Work
Engagement was predicted by three scale parcels, aggregated according
to its three dimensions of Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption (Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2004). This theoretical structure yielded acceptable fit and was
superior to a general one-factor model (CFA 4), tested as a recommended
method to assess the prevalence of common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Finally, all constructs were integrated
into a well-fitting five-factor measurement model (CFA 5), whereas a one-
factor model (CFA 6) was rejected.
Structural Model
The complete five-factor measurement model was transformed into a
structural equation model (SEM) by removing all factor correlations and
replacing them with directed paths. Six structural paths were specified:
from Leader Consideration on Development Idiosyncratic deals and Flex-
ibility Idiosyncratic deals, and both types of idiosyncratic deals on Work-
family Conflict and Work Engagement. Additionally, sex, part-time, age,
job tenure, and job position were controlled on both forms of idiosyncratic
deals. Fit indices for the two-group structural model conformed to all ap-
plicable standards (see SEM 1 in Table 4). Path coefficients for this model
are shown in Table 5. In both waves, Leader Consideration related posi-
tively to both Development Idiosyncratic deals and Flexibility Idiosyn-
EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 67
cratic deals, providing full support for H1a and H1b. Development Idio-
syncratic deals, in turn, had a positive effect on Work Engagement but
showed no significant relation with Work-family Conflict. Conversely,
Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals related negatively to Work-family Conflict
but were unrelated to Work Engagement. Consequently, the differential
effects postulated in H2a and H2b were fully supported. Additionally, hier-
archical position had a positive effect on Development Idiosyncratic deals
but not on Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals, whereas part-time employment
status related positively to Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals but was unre-
lated to Development Idiosyncratic deals. Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals
were unaffected by sex or age and only in the second wave was a positive
effect of organizational tenure observed. Development Idiosyncratic deals
were not influenced by sex, age, or job tenure.
Mediated Effects
According to Sobel tests, the positive indirect effects of Leader Con-
sideration on Work Engagement mediated via Development Idiosyncrat-
ic deals, as well as negative indirect effects of Leader Consideration on
Work-family Conflict mediated via Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals, were
statistically significant in both waves, providing support for H3a and H3b
(Table 5). Adding a direct path from Leader Consideration on Work-fam-
ily Conflict did not notably decrease the chi-square discrepancy of the
model and the respective effects were not significant (SEM 2 in Table 4).
An additional path from Leader Consideration on Work Engagement im-
proved model fit and was significant in Wave 2 but not in Wave 1 (SEM
3 in Table 4). Consequently, complete mediation according to Baron and
TABLE 5
Path Estimates in Structural Model (N = 159/142)
Development Flexibility Work Work-family
Idiosyncratic Idiosyncratic Engagement Conflict
Deals Deals
Female .11/−.05 .10/−.03
Age −.06/−.04 .07/−.15
Tenure .13/−.09 .05/.27†
Part-time .13/.12 .43‡/.51‡
Position .56‡/.34‡ .24/.12
Leader Consideration .41‡/.50‡ .29‡/.40‡ (.20‡/.12†)a (−.07†/−.10†)b
H1a H1b H3a H3b
Development Idiosyncratic .49‡/.24† .10/.15
deals H2a
Flexibility Idiosyncratic −.14/−.03 −.24†/−.24†
deals H2b
Note.—Two-group analysis N = 159/142; standardized parameter coefficients (β-weights) for
Wave 1/Wave 2; values in parentheses refer to indirect effects; Sobel tests for significance of
indirect effects: az = 3.39/2.05 (via Development Idiosyncratic deals); bz = 1.99/2.22 (via Flex-
ibility Idiosyncratic deals). †p < .05. ‡p < .01.
68 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.
TABLE 6
Cross-lagged Partial Correlation Models (N = 91)
Model 1 (H1a) Leader Consideration T2 (T1) Development Idiosyncratic
Deals T2
Leader Consideration T1 (T2) .60‡c .27†a (.29‡)
Development Idiosyncratic .06b (.21†) .50‡c
deals T1
Model 2 (H1b) Leader Consideration T2 (T1) Flexibility Idiosyncratic
deals T2
Leader Consideration T1 (T2) .60‡c .20*a (.27†)
Flexibility Idiosyncratic
deals T1 .09b (.18*) .50‡c
Model 3 (H2a) Development Idiosyncratic Work Engagement T2
deals T2 (T1)
Development Idiosyncratic .50‡c .27†a (.33‡)
deals T1 (T2)
Work Engagement T1 .21*b (.27†) .64‡c
Model 4 (H2b) Flexibility Idiosyncratic Work-family Conflict T2
deals T2 (T1)
Flexibility Idiosyncratic .52‡c −.13a (−.09)
deals T1 (T2)
Work-family Conflict T1 −.16b (−.24†) .66‡c
Model 5 d
Development Idiosyncratic Work-family Conflict T2
deals T2 (T1)
Development Idiosyncratic .50‡c .04 (−.01)
deals T1 (T2)
Work-family Conflict T1 −.03 (.00) .66‡c
Model 6d Flexibility Idiosyncratic Work Engagement T2
deals T2 (T1)
Flexibility Idiosyncratic .52‡c .08 (.16)
deals T1 (T2)
Work Engagement T1 .17 (.11) .64‡c
Model 7d Work Engagement T2 (T1) Work-family Conflict T2
Work Engagement T1 (T2) .64‡c
.27† (.07)
Work-family Conflict T1 .05 (.15) .66‡c
Note.—Partial correlation coefficients (r) in the seven estimated cross-lagged correlation
models; values in parentheses refer to cross-sectional correlations between constructs at T1
(left column) and T2 (right column); aCross-lagged correlations for hypothesized direction
of effects; bCross-lagged correlations for reverse direction; cAutocorrelations (stability coef-
ficients) of constructs over time; dAdditional analyses (no hypothesized direction of effects).
*p < .10. †p < .05. ‡p < .01.
EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 69
Cross-lagged Correlations
Seven cross-lagged correlation models, each consisting of four com-
pletely correlated manifest variables, were used to assess the 1-yr. longi-
tudinal relations between study variables. Results are provided in Table 6.
Model 1 focused on Leader Consideration and Development Idiosyncrat-
ic deals. After controlling for cross-sectional and autocorrelations, Leader
Consideration T1 related positively to Development Idiosyncratic deals
T2, whereas Development Idiosyncratic deals T1 were not related to Lead-
er Consideration T2. In Model 2, Leader Consideration T1 showed a mar-
ginally positive relation with Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals T2, but Flex-
ibility Idiosyncratic deals T1 were unrelated to Leader Consideration T2.
In Model 3, Development Idiosyncratic deals T1 displayed a significant
longitudinal relation with Work Engagement T2; the reverse association
between Work Engagement T1 and Development Idiosyncratic deals T2
was weaker. Neither the cross-lagged correlation between Flexibility Id-
iosyncratic deals T1 and Work-family Conflict nor between Work-Fami-
ly Conflict T1 and Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals T2 was interpretable in
Model 4. Models 5 and 6 tested longitudinal relations between Develop-
ment Idiosyncratic deals and Work-family Conflict as well as between
Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals and Work Engagement. Corresponding to
cross-sectional results, cross-lagged correlations showed that these pairs
of variables were unrelated over time. Finally, Model 7 assessed longitu-
dinal associations between the two dependent variables. This additional
analysis revealed that, whereas Work-family Conflict T1 did not signifi-
cantly relate to Work Engagement T2, the opposite relation between Work
Engagement T1 and Work-family Conflict T2 was significantly positive.
Discussion
This study has clarified the ways that leaders can improve employ-
ees’ quality of working life by treating subordinates differently according
to their individual needs and preferences. As such, the results generated
here make an important contribution to leadership research by demon-
strating that one of the specific behaviors in which leader consideration
can manifest is the authorization of personalized work and employment
conditions desired by individual employees (Likert, 1967). Moreover, the
study contributes to better integrating the emerging concept of idiosyn-
cratic deals with more established constructs in organizational research.
It has provided further evidence for the differential effects of personal-
ized arrangements regarding professional development and working time
flexibility (Rousseau, et al., 2006; Hornung, et al., 2008). As hypothesized,
positive indirect effects of leader consideration on employee work en-
gagement were at least partially mediated via development idiosyncratic
deals, whereas negative indirect effects of leader consideration on the ex-
70 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.
thew effect (Rigney, 2010), in the sense that employees who structurally
possess higher development opportunities or time flexibility may use id-
iosyncratic deals as a way to utilize and expand these potentials of their
jobs. Concurrently, it seems that leaders grant different forms of idiosyn-
crasy credit (Hollander, 1958) to employees with higher status or reduced
working-time arrangements.
Despite the contributions this study makes to advance knowledge of
employee-oriented leadership and personalized working conditions, a
number of limitations apply. As the two analyzed samples contained re-
peat responders, consistent findings across both waves provide support
for the robustness of these results, but cannot be interpreted as an inde-
pendent validation. Findings are susceptible to common method bias aris-
ing from single-source cross-sectional data (Podsakoff, et al., 2003). The
1-yr. longitudinal results may dispel such concerns to some extent, but,
as discussed above, have not been conclusive with regard to the relation
between flexibility idiosyncratic deals and work-family conflict. Further-
more, cross-lagged correlations should not be misunderstood as a genuine
test of causality as they can only provide some indication regarding the
more likely direction of influence between two variables (Locascio, 1982).
For this purpose, a more rigorous test than to examine whether correlation
coefficients for the hypothesized and reverse direction differ significantly
from zero (i.e., significance vs nonsignificance) is to test whether the two
coefficients differ significantly from each other (Schmitt, 1975). In the pres-
ent study, however, this more rigorous testing method did not yield signif-
icant results, which may be attributable to the small sample size resulting
in low statistical power. As such, longitudinal results are somewhat tenta-
tive, and further replication and verification are needed.
Generalizability is another issue of concern. Working conditions of
hospital physicians are shaped by varying shift plans to ensure the hospi-
tal maintains operations 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Moreover, the
need for continuous learning, ongoing qualification, and specialization is
characteristic for the medical profession. As such, physicians’ work may
offer more latitude for personalized arrangements regarding both flexibil-
ity (e.g., special shift arrangements) and development opportunities (e.g.,
assignment to different wards, units, or patients) than other, less qualified
jobs. Subsequent research should be built on the results presented here
by further validating the underlying hypotheses in different occupation-
al and organizational contexts using longitudinal study designs. Further,
more attention should be paid to how the potentially different perspec-
tives, motives, and attributions of employees and supervisors, as well as
their possible interactions (Kraus & Gemmill, 1990), may influence pro-
cesses of individual bargaining.
72 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.
House, R. J., Filley, A. C., & Kerr, S. (1971) Relation of leader consideration and ini-
tiating structure to R & D subordinates, satisfaction. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 16, 19-30.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004) The forgotten ones? The validity of con-
sideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 89, 36-51.
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2003) Rethinking a classic distinction in leadership:
implications for the assessment and development of executives. Consulting Psy-
chology Journal: Research and Practice, 55, 15-25.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1952) Some recent findings in human relations research. In
E. Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pp. 169-202.
Kerr, S. J., & Schriesheim, C. (1974) Consideration, initiating structure, and organi-
zational criteria: an update of Korman’s 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 27, 555-
568.
Kline, R. (2004) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.) New
York: Guilford.
Korman, A. K. (1966) Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria:
a review. Personnel Psychology, 19, 349-361.
Kraus, G., & Gemmill, G. (1990) Idiosyncratic effects of implicit theories of leader-
ship. Psychological Reports, 66, 247-257.
Likert, R. (1961) New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967) The human organization: its management and value. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Locascio, J. J. (1982) The cross-lagged correlation technique: reconsideration in terms
of exploratory utility, assumption specification, and robustness. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 1023-1036.
Netemeyer, R., Boles, J. S., & McNurrian, R. (1996) Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 400-410.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common
method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Rigney, D. (2010) The Matthew effect: how advantage begets further advantage. New York:
Columbia Univer. Press.
Rossi, A. M., Perrewé, P. L., & Sauter, S. L. (Eds.) (2006) Stress and quality of work-
ing life: current perspectives in occupational health. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publ.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001) Idiosyncratic deals: flexibility versus fairness? Organizational
Dynamics, 29, 260-271.
Rousseau, D. M. (2005) I-DEALS: idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves.
New York: Sharpe.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006) Idiosyncratic deals: idiosyncratic
terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977-994.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004) �������������������������������������������
Job demands, job resources, and their rela-
tionship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 25, 293-315.
74 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.