�㽶��ý

For employees seeking a better work-life balance and employers needing to attract and retain talent, individualized work arrangements—known as idiosyncratic deals, or i-deals—are a potential win-win solution. In an i-deal, an employee and supervisor negotiate a customized arrangement for the employee, such as shifting work hours to allow flexibility for family responsibilities.

When it comes to securing an i-deal, though, is the playing field level for all employees who want to negotiate one? The answer to that question goes beyond just the employee and supervisor involved, says �㽶��ý Professor of Management Smriti Anand, whose research on i-deals has been published in a variety of scholarly journals over the past 15 years.

Her latest paper, “,” published in the Academy of Management Journal, investigates whether the web of social networks within work groups at a company or organization can be a strategic advantage or barrier to accessing i-deals. It also explores which employees are most likely to get them and how supervisors can more effectively use i-deals as a management tool to improve employee performance.

Anand and her co-authors analyzed data collected in two studies surveying a total of 807 workers and 158 supervisors. One surveyed employees at 70 mid-sized restaurants in a city in the southwestern United States and the other surveyed employees at a large retail business in Iran.

The surveys asked employees to identify co-workers who are central to the social networks in their work group—specifically, which ones they view as trustworthy collaborators and which ones they see as roadblocks to getting work done. The research team also gathered details about i-deals that employees currently have in place and surveyed supervisors about workers’ performance.

Most work groups have several positive “trust” networks of people who are largely seen as trustworthy collaborators, as well as several negative “hindrance” networks of people who are considered as difficult to work with, Anand says. The research group’s analysis indicates that both how an individual is viewed by co-workers and the overall balance between trust and hindrance networks within a work group affect the granting of i-deals. Key findings include:

• Individuals who are central in trust networks are more likely to receive i-deals, while those who are central to hindrance networks are unlikely to receive i-deals.

• The advantage to an individual of being in trust networks is significantly greater when a work group has more hindrance networks than trust networks, which suggests that work group dynamics can make or break an employee’s chances of getting an i-deal.

• In securing an i-deal, the negative effect of being viewed as a hindrance carries more weight than the positive effect of being seen as trustworthy.

According to Anand and her co-authors, this research provides practical insights for managers regarding the composition of work groups, employee training that builds more trust ties in the workplace, and strategically utilizing i-deals to improve the performance of employees who are otherwise considered to be difficult to work with.

For example, an employee who needs to care for a sick family member may be seen as a hindrance because they are not available for extra work or to provide support to co-workers. However, a supervisor could help improve that employee’s work and life situation through an i-deal with a flexible work schedule, which may help the individual move out of the hindrance network, benefiting work group performance.

“People can become part of a hindrance network for many reasons, and managers need to pay attention and think about that,” says Anand. “If what employees want and need can be accommodated without harm to the social and professional fabric and effectiveness of the work group, why not support that?”