This research reveals the role of idiosyncratic deals in enhancing employee engagement and performance, highlighting the mediating factors of work-life balance and perceived organizational support.
Purpose This study investigates how idiosyncratic deals (I-deals) shape employee engagement and performance, emphasizing the mediating mechanisms of work-life balance (WLB), perceived organizational support (POS) and intrinsic motivation (IM). Drawing on the job demands–resources (JD-R) model and social exchange theory (SET), the study conceptualizes I-deals as strategic HRM tools that function as negotiated job resources, enhancing employee outcomes in high-pressure, knowledge-intensive environments such as Big Four firms. Design/methodology/approach To ensure representation across hierarchical levels, a three-wave time-lagged study was conducted using stratified random sampling among 610 employees in Big four firms in Chennai, India. Data were analyzed using SmartPLS 4 with a disjoint two-stage approach, ensuring a robust assessment of higher-order constructs. Findings Results demonstrate that I-deals significantly enhance employee engagement and performance. WLB, POS and IM act as complementary mediators, confirming that I-deals serve as job resources that alleviate job demands and reinforce positive employee-organisation relationships. The findings extend the JD-R theory by illustrating how personalized work arrangements function as strategic resources in high-pressure professional service firms. Originality/value This study extends HRM theory by positioning I-deals as a formalized workforce customization strategy rather than an informal negotiation tool. It advances the JD-R model by conceptualizing I-deals as negotiable job resources and reinforces SET by illustrating their role in fostering reciprocal employee commitment. The findings offer practical insights for HR managers, advocating structured and inclusive I-deals as part of strategic HRM to support retention, well-being, and performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M.B. Saikrishna (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: