Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jvb

Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment

Thomas W.H. Ng a,*, Daniel C. Feldman b,1

a School of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kongb University of Georgia, Terry College of Business, 339 Brooks Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 4 September 2009Available online 12 October 2009

Keywords:Idiosyncratic dealsPsychological contractsCore self-evaluationsOrganizational commitmentChronological ageSubjective age

0001-8791/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Incdoi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.006

* Corresponding author. Fax: +852 2858 5614.E-mail addresses: tng@business.hku.hk (T.W.H. N

1 Fax: +1 706 542 3743.

This article examines the relationship between idiosyncratic deals and organizational com-mitment. In particular, it examines how two individual differences which reflect self-worth(core self-evaluations and age) moderate that relationship. We predicted that employeeswith feelings of high self-worth will expect and will feel entitled to these deals, butemployees with feelings of low self-worth will feel particularly obligated to reciprocatepositively for special treatment. Data were collected from 375 managers at two points intime. As predicted, the relationship between idiosyncratic deals and affective organiza-tional commitment was stronger for those managers who had low core self-evaluations.While the two-way interaction effect between idiosyncratic deals and age was not signif-icant, we did find modest evidence for a three-way interaction effect. As predicted, thestrongest relationship between idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitmentoccurred for older workers who had low core self-evaluations.

� 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As individuals are becoming increasingly responsible for managing their own careers (Briscoe & Hall, 2006), firms findthemselves having to work harder to generate organizational commitment. One strategy which has received considerableattention in this context is providing employees with idiosyncratic employment arrangements which are tailored to theirown personal needs (Rousseau, 2005). In turn, organizations hope these idiosyncratic contracts will motivate employeesto reciprocate with greater loyalty and greater effort on their jobs.

Most prior research on this issue assumes that employees will systematically react positively when they are offered idi-osyncratic deals (Rousseau, 2005). While we agree that these deals will have positive effects on employees in general, wecontend that the magnitude of those effects may vary substantially due to individual differences. Practically speaking, idi-osyncratic deals are costly to organizations. As such, they should only be offered to employees who will reciprocate posi-tively. If these idiosyncratic contracts do not improve employment relationships, the rare and valuable resources given toemployees in these deals will be wasted.

Theoretically speaking, we believe that employees’ feelings of self-worth play a major role in how individuals respond toidiosyncratic deals. Employees who have feelings of high self-worth are likely to feel entitled to idiosyncratic psychologicalcontracts and to take them as their due. In contrast, employees who have feelings of low self-worth are likely to respondespecially positively to idiosyncratic contracts because they are being personally (and, from their perspective, unexpectedly)chosen for special attention. The purpose of this study, then, is to examine how two individual differences related to self-worth moderate the relationship between idiosyncratic deals and affective organizational commitment.

. All rights reserved.

g), dfeldman@terry.uga.edu (D.C. Feldman).

420 T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427

The first individual difference we consider here is core self-evaluations, which represent the fundamental premises peoplehave about themselves and how well they function in the world (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). They reflect employees’ self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control. As a personality construct closely tied to the generalnotion of self-worth, core self-evaluations can play a major role in affecting how employees respond to idiosyncratic deals.

The second individual difference we consider here is age. Historically, older workers face some barriers to entry and ad-verse treatment on the job (Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Weiss & Maurer, 2004) which affect not only how older workers areviewed by colleagues, but also how older workers view themselves. Consequently, it is not surprising that researchers havefound that older workers experience greater feelings of low self-worth than their younger counterparts do (Robins, Trzes-niewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002). Thus, age can affect the level of self-worth employees bring to their employmentrelationships and, in so doing, influence how older workers view their employment contracts, too.

2. Theory

2.1. Idiosyncratic deals

Psychological contracts consist of beliefs regarding the mutual obligations between employees and their employers(Rousseau, 1989). Both social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and inducements-contributions model (March & Simon, 1958)suggest that individuals are more likely to perceive their employee-organization relationships in a positive light and be com-mitted to their employers when they feel valued and/or when organizational inducements are attractive to employees. Re-cent research suggests that idiosyncratic contracts are especially likely to generate organizational commitment amongemployees (Rousseau, 2005).

Idiosyncratic contracts are employment arrangements that are different in nature from those given to other employeesand are crafted to meet the specific needs of individual employees. These idiosyncratic contracts offer employees additionalresources (e.g., special promotion tracks or flexible scheduling) not readily available to their colleagues (Rousseau, Ho, &Greenberg, 2006). Moreover, the content of idiosyncratic deals may vary quite substantially across employees. For example,some employees may have idiosyncratic arrangements only regarding their work schedules, while others may have idiosyn-cratic arrangements which address only career advancement opportunities and compensation packages.

Several factors have contributed to the increased number of idiosyncratic deals offered to employees, including the lib-eralization of labor laws, the reduction in union power, and labor market shortages (Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008). Notsurprisingly, highly skilled workers and highly educated professionals and managers have been especially motivated to pur-sue and negotiate such deals for themselves.

It is important to note that the construct of contract idiosyncrasy is distinct from the construct of contract replicability. Ngand Feldman (2008) suggest that contract replicability refers to the extent to which employees believe that the inducementsoffered by the current employers are replicable in other employment relationships. In other words, contract replicability hasa primarily external focus and addresses whether the same deals are likely to be offered by other companies. Conversely, con-tract idiosyncrasy has a primarily internal focus and refers to those employment arrangements which are special comparedto their colleagues’ deals. It is possible that a psychological contract is idiosyncratic within a firm, and is not replicable exter-nally because other employers are unwilling to offer these kinds of resources and arrangements to their workers.

2.2. Organizational commitment

We propose that idiosyncratic deals will be positively related to organizational commitment for two reasons. First, indi-viduals who perceive their contracts as idiosyncratic may be particularly excited about being the only one (or one of a few) toreceive rare and valued resources. These enhanced positive emotions would directly strengthen organizational commitment(Hornung et al., 2008). Second, and more importantly, perceptions of idiosyncratic deals may increase employees’ trust intheir employers and cement their bonds with them (Rousseau, 2005). In contrast, a ‘‘standard” deal may signal indifferenceor disinterest to an individual’s particular needs.

We focus on affective commitment here because previous researchers have noted it is one of the most immediate out-comes and indicators of the quality of employee–organization relationships (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,2002; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Furthermore, some previous empirical research on idiosyncratic deals andorganizational commitment (e.g., Hornung et al., 2008) has used affective commitment as its measure of commitment. Usingthe same dependent variable here, then, would make it easier to build upon and compare results across studies. Thus, wepropose:

Hypothesis 1. Perceptions of idiosyncratic contracts are positively related to affective organizational commitment.

2.3. Moderators of the idiosyncratic deal – Affective commitment relationship

When Hornung et al. (2008) studied the relationship between idiosyncratic deals and affective commitment, they did notfind a consistent association between these two variables. One of the reasons for these mixed findings might be the existence

T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427 421

of individual-difference moderators. In the present study, we examine how two individual differences relating to self-worth– core self-evaluations and age (both chronological and subjective) – moderate the relationship between idiosyncratic dealsand affective commitment.

2.4. The moderating effect of core self-evaluations

Core self-evaluations (CSE) encompass the fundamental premises people hold about themselves and how they function inthe world (Judge et al., 1997). There are four specific trait indicators of CSE. Self-esteem is the extent to which individuals seethemselves as people of worth. Generalized self-efficacy is the extent to which individuals believe in their ability to performtasks across different situations. Emotional stability is the extent to which individuals feel calm, secure, and mentally healthy.Locus of control is the extent to which individuals believe that they are the masters of their own fate. In sum, individuals whohave high CSE tend to have positive assessments of their self-worth, their ability to perform, their capacity to take control oftheir lives, and the emotional stability to withstand setbacks.

Previous research has treated CSE as an independent variable and has shown that CSE predicts both work and non-workoutcomes (e.g., Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). On the other hand, much less is known about the moderating effect ofCSE. Judge et al. (1997) have argued that people’s assessments of the external world are influenced not only by the objectiveattributes of the objects or people they observe, but also by the meta-assumptions people hold about themselves and theirplace in the world. This line of argument would suggest that people’s reactions to workplace stimuli, such as employmentarrangements, may depend as much on the receiver’s perceptions as on the objective nature of the stimuli themselves. Here,we propose that individuals with low CSE will react more positively to perceptions of idiosyncratic deals than individualswith high CSE.

First, March and Simon’s (1958) inducements-contributions model suggests that organizational inducements are likely toelicit greater contributions from employees when those inducements are perceived to be attractive. Individuals with low CSEmay not believe that they will get special employment deals and have little expectation of receiving them. As such, theseindividuals may react more strongly and favorably when they do, in fact, receive idiosyncratic deals. Conversely, people withhigh CSE may not respond unusually positively to special deals because they already believe that they are highly-valuedemployees and expect to receive them.

Second, self-enhancement theory (Epstein, 1973) proposes that individuals have a general tendency to favor experiencesthat enhance their self-evaluations. The underlying premise here is that individuals are essentially hedonistic, prefer viewingthemselves in a positive light, and constantly seek out opportunities to enhance their feelings of self-worth (Sedikides, 1993;Wells, 2001). Thus, individuals with low CSE may react particularly strongly to idiosyncratic deals because they have positivesymbolic value and help raise employees’ self-esteem.

Last here, it should be noted that Judge et al. (1998) predicted that the relationship between favorable job characteristicsand job satisfaction would be stronger for those with high CSE because these individuals would interpret favorable job char-acteristics in a much more positive way. However, Judge et al. (1998) did not find empirical support for this moderator pre-diction. One possible explanation is that CSE creates countervailing forces on employees’ reactions to workplace stimuli.While individuals with high CSE might view the world through rose-colored glasses, individuals with low CSE may reactmore positively to idiosyncratic deals because they are so used to viewing the world through gray-colored glasses. Thus,we predict:

Hypothesis 2. CSE moderates the relationship between perceptions of idiosyncratic contracts and affective commitment,such that the relationship is stronger for individuals low on CSE.

2.5. The moderating effect of age

We examine age as another potential moderator of the relationship between idiosyncratic contracts and affective com-mitment. There are reasons to believe that older workers may react to idiosyncratic contracts differently than younger work-ers do. For instance, empirical research has indicated that, as people age, there are changes in their self-concepts, identities,emotions, social interaction patterns, and coping strategies (Heckhausen & Brim, 1997; Lebouvie-Vief & De Voe, 1991; Ste-verink & Lindenberg, 2006). These changes, when taken together, may strengthen the intensity with which older workersrespond to idiosyncratic employment arrangements.

We expect that older workers will respond more positively to these special deals than younger employees do. First, olderadults strive more strongly for high quality interpersonal relationships (Sorkin & Rook, 2006) because social relationshipsfulfill their high needs for status and affiliation (Steverink & Lindenberg, 2006). Thus, to the extent that idiosyncratic employ-ment arrangements signal supervisors’ caring and organizational respect, older workers may react even more positively toreceiving idiosyncratic deals.

Second, older workers are likely to be aware of the negative stereotypes typically held about them (Posthuma & Campion,2009; Weiss & Maurer, 2004). These stereotypes affect not only how older workers are viewed by their colleagues, but alsohow older workers see themselves. Thus, compared to younger workers, older workers have fewer reasons to expect idio-syncratic deals from employers. This line of reasoning is also consistent with what Schieman (2002) calls the ‘‘disadvantagedstatus thesis,” in which groups that are historically disadvantaged at work (e.g., older workers) derive greater satisfaction

422 T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427

from whatever rewards and resources they are able to muster from their work environments. As a result, when older work-ers do receive employment deals that are unique and idiosyncratic in nature, they may react even more positively and de-velop an even greater sense of attachment to their employers.

In the present study we examine both objective (chronological) age and subjective age (Shore, Cleveland, & Goldberg,2003). Consistent with Judge’s work on objective versus subjective interpretations of stimuli (Judge et al., 1998), here weexamine whether it is how old employees are – or how old they feel – which moderates the relationship between idiosyn-cratic employment deals and affective commitment. Thus, we predict:

Hypothesis 3. Age (both chronological and subjective) moderates the relationship between perceptions of idiosyncraticcontracts and affective commitment, such that the relationship is stronger for individuals who are older.

2.6. Three-way interaction effect

A logical extension of the above reasoning is a prediction of a three-way interaction effect of contract idiosyncrasy, CSE,and age on organizational commitment. Specifically, we predict in Hypothesis 4 that the effect of idiosyncratic deals on orga-nizational commitment will be the strongest among older workers with low CSE. This group of individuals had the lowestself-worth compared to those with other combinations of age and CSE, and thus should react the most positively to receivingidiosyncratic deals.

Hypothesis 4. Contract idiosyncrasy, CSE, and age have a three-way interaction effect on affective commitment, such thatthe relationship between contract idiosyncrasy and affective commitment will be strongest for older individuals with lowCSE.

3. Method

3.1. Sample

We chose managers as our target population because, as professionals, they are more likely to be able to negotiate or re-ceive idiosyncratic deals than non-supervisory personnel are. To that end, we hired a U.S.-based research organization to re-cruit managerial-level respondents for this study. Respondents received small monetary incentives to participate in on-linesurveys. To help reduce concerns about common method bias, we separated the collection of measures of the independentvariables from data collection on the dependent variable by 8 months.

Surveys were sent to 2500 managers selected from the research company’s sample pool. At Time 1576 usable surveyswere returned, representing a response rate of 23%. Eight months later, the Time 2 survey was sent to those 576 managerswho participated in the first survey. We received 395 usable surveys back, representing a response rate of 69% at Time 2.Twenty (20) individuals had changed jobs during this 8-month span. The effective sample size for the current study, there-fore, was 375. There were no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents on the psychological anddemographic variables we measured.

The average age of the participants in the study was 42.5 years old (SD = 11.82). Fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondentswere female. Average organizational tenure was 9.6 years; average job tenure was 7.7 years. Eighty-four percent (84%) of thesample had at least some college education. Twenty percent (20%) of the sample were first-line supervisors, 55% were mid-dle-level managers, and 25% were senior managers.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Contract idiosyncrasy (Time 1)To develop the contract idiosyncrasy scale, we drew upon Ng and Feldman’s (2008) work. These authors suggest that

employers’ implicit contractual obligations to employees include six key elements: level of pay, advancement opportunities,training, career development, job security, and support with personal problems. The items for contract idiosyncrasy in thepresent study, then, read: ‘‘This organization promises me a level of pay (advancement opportunities, skill training, careerdevelopment opportunities, a level of job security, support for personal problems) that most employees in my team/unitdo not get.” The coefficient alpha for this scale was .90.

To ensure that our six-item contract idiosyncrasy scale is distinct from Ng and Feldman’s (2008) six-item contract rep-licability scale, we administered additional surveys to 199 undergraduate students majoring in business administration ata local university. On the surveys, we provided definitions of contract idiosyncrasy and contract replicability. Next, we listedthe 12 items (in random order) and asked subjects to rate the extent to which each item appropriately measures each of thetwo constructs. Then, following Hinkin and Tracey (1999), we assessed content validity by comparing each item’s mean rat-ing on the two constructs with t-tests. In each of the 12 cases, we found that item had a significantly higher mean rating onits a priori construct than on the other construct. These results provide supporting evidence that participants were able todistinguish contract idiosyncrasy items from contract replicability items.

T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427 423

In addition, we administered a short survey to a different group of 340 employees from mixed occupations recruited on-line. On that survey, we provided the six items we generated to measure contract idiosyncrasy here (a = .89, M = 2.77,SD = .94) and the six items from Ng and Feldman’s (2008) contract replicability measure (a = .89, M = 3.02, SD = .84). We ob-served that the correlation between the two scales was �.51 (i.e., 26% of overlapping variance between the two constructs).This correlation was expected, since contracts which are idiosyncratic in nature are less likely to be replicable elsewhere.Nonetheless, when we constrained the factor correlation to unity in a confirmatory factor analysis, we found that the equal-ity constraint worsened the model fit (p < .01), suggesting that the two constructs are empirically distinct.

Last here, we did not use the Hornung et al. (2008) measure of idiosyncratic deals for two reasons. First, the Hornung et al.(2008) measure only covers two aspects of the psychological contract (development opportunities and work schedule flex-ibility) and here we are interested in a broader array of contract elements. Second, the Hornung et al. (2008) measure asksemployees to indicate the extent to which they had negotiated for arrangements different from those of their coworkers. Assuch, this measure taps individuals’ proactive behaviors in seeking out idiosyncratic deals. However, in the present study, weare interested in tapping individuals’ perceptions of how their psychological contracts differ from those of their colleagues.

3.2.2. Core self-evaluations (Time 1)CSE were measured by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen’s (2003) 12-item scale (a = .86). A sample item is: ‘‘Overall, I am

satisfied with myself.”

3.2.3. Age (Time 1)Age was measured in two ways. First, respondents were asked to indicate their chronological age. Second, respondents

were asked to complete a four-item scale created by Shore et al. (2003) to measure subjective age. Specifically, respondentswere asked to indicate which of the age groups (1 = 16–25, 2 = 26–35, 3 = 36–45, 4 = 46–55, 5 = 56–75) most closely corre-sponded to: (a) the way they generally felt; (b) the way they looked; (c) the age of people whose interests and activities weremost like theirs; and (d) the age that they would most like to be. The coefficient alpha for this four-item scale was .91. Thismeasure of subjective age was related to the measure of chronological age at .81.

3.2.4. Affective commitment (Time 2)Affective commitment was measured 8 months after Time 1 with Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) six-item scale

(a = .94).

3.2.5. Control variablesWe included gender, marital status, organizational tenure, job level, and education level as control variables. These demo-

graphic and work history variables are shown to be related to affective commitment in previous studies (Benson, Finegold, &Mohrman, 2004; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002).

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory factor analyses

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. Before proceedingto test the hypotheses, we first conducted confirmatory factor analyses to determine whether the measurement models haveacceptable model fit. To do so, we specified all the latent variables in a confirmatory factor analysis and evaluated the modelfit. The fit of the model was evaluated by various fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998,1999). To conclude amodel fits the data well, Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999) suggest that TLI, BL89, and CFI should be close to .95, RMSEA shouldbe close to .06, and SRMR should be close to .08. We found that the measurement model has acceptable fit. The TLI was .96

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (N = 375).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Contract idiosyncrasy (Time 1) (.90)2. Core self-evaluations (Time 1) .21** (.86)3. Chronological age (Time 1) �.06 .06 –4. Subjective age (Time 1) �.14* .02 .81** (.91)5. Affective organizational commitment (Time 2) .46** .28** .17** .10 (.94)

Mean 2.98 4.01 42.50 2.82 3.53SD 0.95 0.61 11.82 0.84 1.05

Note: Reliability estimates are provided in parentheses.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

424 T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427

and both BL89 and CFI were .97. RMSEA was .07 and SRMR was .06. All five indices, therefore, meet the cutoff criteria sug-gested by Hu and Bentler (1999). As expected, all the factor loadings were statistically significant.

The regression results appear in Table 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that contract idiosyncrasy would be positively related toaffective commitment. As shown in Table 2, we found support for this hypothesis. Contract idiosyncrasy measured at Time 1was positively related to affective commitment measured at Time 2 (b = .39, p < .01) after taking the control variables intoaccount. The explained variance was 13%.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that CSE would moderate the positive relationship between contract idiosyncrasy and affectivecommitment, such that the relationship would be stronger for individuals with low (vs. high) core self-evaluations. As shownin Table 2, the interaction effect of contract idiosyncrasy and CSE had a significant negative effect on affective commitmentmeasured at Time 2 (b = �.08, p < .05) after taking the control variables into account. The explained variance was 2%.

To determine the direction of the significant interaction effects, we examined the simple slope of affective commitmentregressed on contract idiosyncrasy at different levels of CSE (below/above the mean). Fig. 1 illustrates this two-way interac-tion effect. We observe that perceptions of contract idiosyncrasy have a stronger positive effect on affective commitment forindividuals with low (vs. high) CSE. Thus, we found support for Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that age (both chronological and subjective) would moderate the positive relationship betweencontract idiosyncrasy and affective commitment, such that the relationship would be stronger for individuals with higherage. As shown in Table 2, these interaction effects were not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is not supported.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the effect of contract idiosyncrasy on affective commitment would be strongest when CSEwas low and age was high. As shown in Table 2, we found the interaction effect of subjective age, CSE and contract idiosyn-crasy was statistically significant (b = �.09, p < .05) above and beyond the influence of control variables, main effect vari-ables, and two-way interaction effects, even though the explained variance was modest (1%). We plotted the significantinteraction effect by examining the simple slope of affective commitment regressed on contract idiosyncrasy at different lev-els of CSE (below/above the mean) and subjective age. To divide respondents into subgroups of roughly equal sample size inthis post hoc analysis, we grouped individuals who reported subjective ages of 16–35 into one group (the low age group) andthe individuals who reported subjective ages of 36–75 into the high age group.

As shown in Fig. 2, for individuals with low subjective age, the effect of having low CSE vs. high CSE on affective com-mitment is negligible. That is, the regression intercepts and slopes for the relationship between contract idiosyncrasyand affective commitment were basically the same for individuals with low and high CSE. However, the differencewas more obvious in the high subjective age group. Specifically, the positive relationship between perceptions of contractidiosyncrasy and affective commitment was strongest for individuals with low CSE who also perceived themselves asolder.

Table 2Regression Results (Dependent Variable = Affective Organizational Commitment).

H1 H2 H3 (Interaction termscreated using sub. age)

H3 (Interaction termscreated using bio. age)

H4 (Interaction termscreated using sub. age)

H4 (Interaction termscreated using bio. age)

Socio-Demographic VariablesChronological age .16 .16 .16 .16 .16 .18Subjective age .06 .06 .06 .06 .04 .07Female .21** .20** .21** .21** .19** .20**

Married .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .01Organization tenure .10 .11 .10 .10 .13 .11Job level .20** .19** .20** .20** .18** .18**

Education level .03 .05 .03 .03 .05 .05R2 .20** .20** .20** .20** .20** .20**

Main EffectsContract idiosyncrasy .39** .39** .39** .39** .39** .39**

CSE – .14** – – .14** .14**

DR2 .13** .15** .13** .13** .15** .15**

2-Way Interaction TermsIdiosyncrasy X CSE .08* – – .08* .08*

Idiosyncrasy X Age – .02 .06 .06 .01CSE X Age – – – .01 .01DR2 .02* .00 .00 .02* .02*

3-Way Interaction TermIdiosyncrasy X CSE X Age .09* .08�

DR2 .01* .01�

Total R2 .33** .37** .33** .33** .38** .38**

Note. N = 375. Regression coefficients represent standardized parameters (Betas).CSE = core self-evaluations; sub. age = subjective age; bio. age = biological/chronological age.** p < .01.* p < .05.� p < .10.

2.5

3.5

4.5

Contract Idiosyncrasy

Com

mitm

ent High core self-evaluation

Low core self-evaluation

Fig. 1. Graphical plot of the two-way interaction effect of contract idiosyncrasy and core self-evaluations on employees’ organizational commitment.

2.5

3.5

4.5

Contract Idiosyncrasy

Com

mitm

ent High CSE, High age

Low CSE, Low age

Low CSE, High age

High CSE, Low age

Low High

Fig. 2. Graphical plot of the three-way interaction effect of contract idiosyncrasy, core self-evaluations (CSE), and subjective age on employees’organizational commitment.

T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427 425

In contrast, the interaction effect of chronological age, CSE and contract idiosyncrasy was not statistically significant at theconventional alpha level (b = �.08, p = .06, DR2 = 1%). However, when we plot this three-way interaction effect, we observedthat the pattern of results here is much the same. For younger individuals, the effect of low (vs. high) CSE on affective com-mitment is rather small. That is, the regression intercepts and slopes for the relationship between contract idiosyncrasy andaffective commitment are basically the same for individuals with low and high core self-evaluations. However, differencesare more evident among older workers. Specifically, the positive relationship between perceptions of contract idiosyncrasyand affective commitment was strongest for individuals with low CSE who were also older.

5. Discussion

Our findings provide some support for our hypothesis that idiosyncratic deals elicit the most affective commitment whenthey are offered to older individuals with low CSE. To the extent that age plays a role in this three-way interaction effect,though, it does so through employees’ perceptions and beliefs about their age rather than through their objective age per se.

5.1. Implications for future research

In this paper, we emphasize that employees are likely to make social comparisons between their own contracts and thecontracts they perceive their coworkers received. However, these social comparisons may cause employees to have lessfavorable perceptions of justice in the workplace. Specifically, the lack of standardization in employment arrangementscan lead to employees’ misperceptions about the deals their colleagues receive (Rousseau, 2001), particularly if coworkers

426 T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427

exaggerate how much they receive in their attempts to enhance their reputations. Those misconceptions may result in per-ceptions of unfairness. Furthermore, if individuals have been previously misled in contract negotiations – either with a pastemployer or the current employer – they will be less likely to believe their contracts are unique and special. The justice lit-erature, in particular, might provide an interesting perspective on why employees underestimate the specialness and equityof the idiosyncratic deals they receive.

Further research is also warranted on individuals’ choice of referents. While we generally expect individuals to comparethemselves with their coworkers as a group, the relative deprivation literature suggests that employees are also likely tomake ‘‘similar up” comparisons, that is, they tend to compare themselves to colleagues who have somewhat better dealsthan they themselves have (Turnley & Feldman, 1998, 2000). As a result, there may be an inherent bias in employees’ per-ceptions of their psychological contracts because individuals tend to focus on referents who they believe are better off. Thus,while our study focused on broad-based social comparisons, future research would benefit from examining more specificforms of social comparison as well.

In addition, future research should consider different forms of psychological attachment, too. As we noted earlier, wewere largely interested in affective commitment here because of the direct effects of psychological contracts on affectivecommitment. At the same time, both continuance commitment and normative commitment are equally useful dependentvariables to consider in the case of idiosyncratic psychological contracts. For example, another way in which idiosyncraticpsychological contracts might bind employees to their companies is by generating greater moral obligations to demonstrateloyalty and perform at the highest levels.

In addition, the dominant focus in psychological contract research has been on how to create work environments thatelicit stronger emotional bonds to employers (Rousseau, 1998). Relatively few studies, though, have examined individual dif-ferences in this context. In the present study, we focus on how self-worth influences the strength of the relationship betweenidiosyncratic contracts and affective commitment, but other individual differences may play a role here as well. Thus, wepropose that the literature linking psychological contracts to organizational commitment would benefit by adopting aninteractionist perspective rather than a purely individual- or situation-centric view.

5.2. Limitations

There are several limitations in the present study that might be addressed in future empirical research. First, the observedeffect sizes, especially for the interaction effects, are modest (DR2 = 1–2%). However, the difficulty in detecting moderationeffects with small and medium sample sizes has been well established (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Furthermore, our effectsizes were within the typical range (DR2 = .01–.03) for moderation effects in non-experimental research (Champoux & Peters,1987; Chaplin, 1991). This notwithstanding, our results should be interpreted with the caveat that they may contain otheruntested mediated or moderated relationships.

Second, all variables were self-reported in nature, thus giving rise to concerns about common method bias. Even thoughwe separated the measurement of independent and dependent variables by 8 months, this does not necessarily completelyeliminate this source of bias. Researchers should therefore consider the use of other-report measures, such as supervisor-rated organizational commitment.

A question which is frequently raised in age-related research is whether the differences observed between younger andolder workers are due to the aging process itself, to generational differences, or to some other outside factor. In the presentstudy, it appears that subjective age plays a more important role than objective age, suggesting that the group differencesobserved here are due to social constructions of age rather than objective aging processes. However, the present study couldnot eliminate the possibility that it is generational differences, rather than age differences, that account for the group-levelmoderator results. For instance, younger workers may take idiosyncratic contracts in stride because they lack work experi-ence and knowledge about the workplace.

5.3. Managerial implications

The present findings have some implications for how organizations allocate idiosyncratic employment arrangements andwhat the likely outcomes of those allocation decisions will be. We found that idiosyncratic deals generally have a positive effecton affective commitment and thus their use, in general, can be beneficial for organizations. The results also show that idiosyn-cratic deals offered to older workers who have low CSE may elicit the strongest increase in affective commitment. Ironically,though, it is these same employees who are least likely to receive idiosyncratic deals because organizations often prefer to givespecial employment deals to younger workers. Because the demand for skilled, entry-level professionals tends to be highlycompetitive and the norms about negotiating for special deals are stronger among younger workers, older workers (especiallythose with low CSE) may be afraid that asking for special deals will lower their employers’ interest in them even further.

It is important, then, that organizations consider the relative payoffs for giving idiosyncratic deals to different groups ofemployees. For instance, if age stereotypes pervade managers’ resource allocation decisions, older workers will be less likelyto receive idiosyncratic deals – even though they are likely to react more strongly to these deals. Similarly, if managers onlyoffer idiosyncratic deals to aggressive, self-confident employees, the more self-effacing ‘‘good soldiers” will be short-chan-ged. Here, too, there may be perverse outcomes. The self-confident employees who receive the best deals may take them forgranted and turn over anyway, while the self-effacing employees – who would exert even greater effort if they received idi-

T.W.H. Ng, D.C. Feldman / Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010) 419–427 427

osyncratic deals – are left empty-handed. Thus, only through understanding both employees’ reactions to idiosyncratic dealsand how managers make their allocation decisions can we fully understand how to best use these special employmentarrangements.

6. Conclusion

Retaining workers is a major challenge for organizations today due to the greater control employees have taken for man-aging their own careers (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). Thus, employees may not be willing to join or stay with an organizationunless employers offer them something special and unique. These arrangements not only make employees feel valued, butalso weaken their beliefs they can get comparable deals elsewhere. Contract idiosyncrasy, then, is an important feature ofpsychological contracts in its own right. We hope that future research will continue to focus increased attention to thenon-standard elements of those contracts that especially bind employees to their firms.

References

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundarylesscareer (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.

Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 315–331.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 4–18.Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243–255.Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404–416.Heckhausen, J., & Brim, O. G. (1997). Perceived problems for self and others: Self-protection by social downgrading throughout adulthood. Psychology and

Aging, 12, 610–619.Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 175–186.Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 655–664.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to unparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3,

424–453.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural

Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior,

19, 151–188.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 17–34.Lebouvie-Vief, G., & De Voe, M. (1991). Emotional regulation in adulthood and later life: A developmental view. Annual Review of Geronotology and Geriatrics,

11, 172–194.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis

of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). Can you get a better deal elsewhere? The effects of psychological contract replicability on organizational commitment

over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 268–277.Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of

Management, 35, 158–188.Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836.Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 423–434.Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217–233.Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal: Flexibility versus fairness? Organizational Dynamics, 29, 260–273.Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994.Schieman, S. (2002). Socioeconomic status, job conditions, and well-being: Self-concept explanations for gender-contingent effects. The Sociological

Quarterly, 43, 627–646.Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,

317–338.Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 529–537.Sorkin, D. H., & Rook, K. S. (2006). Dealing with negative social exchanges in later life: Coping responses, goals, and effectiveness. Psychology and Aging, 21,

715–725.Steverink, N., & Lindenberg, S. (2006). Which social needs are important for subjective well-being? What happens to them with aging? Psychology and Aging,

21, 281–290.Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37, 71–83.Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as

mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25–42.Weiss, E. M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Age discrimination in personnel decisions: A reexamination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1551–1562.Wells, L. E. (2001). Self-esteem and social inequality. In T. J. Owens, S. Stryker, & N. Goodman (Eds.), Extending self-esteem theory and research: Sociological

and psychological currents (pp. 301–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.