See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51083161

Employee-oriented leadership and quality of working

life: Mediating roles of idiosyncratic deals

Article  in  Psychological Reports · February 2011

DOI: 10.2466/07.13.14.21.PR0.108.1.59-74 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

19 744

5 authors, including:

Juergen Glaser Denise M. Rousseau

University of Innsbruck University Professor at Carnegie Mellon
107 PUBLICATIONS   1,139 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   24,349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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:

High performance work systems and firm performance View project

employment in crisis economies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juergen Glaser on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychological Reports, 2011, 108, 1, 59-74. © Psychological Reports 2011

EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP AND QUALITY OF WORKING

LIFE: MEDIATING ROLES OF IDIOSYNCRATIC DEALS1, 2

SEVERIN HORNUNG JÜRGEN GLASER

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

Summary.—Leader consideration has long been suggested to be conducive to

quality of working life experienced by employees. The present study links this clas-
sic leadership dimension with more recent research on idiosyncratic deals, refer-
ring to personalized conditions workers negotiate in their employment relation-
ships. A two-wave survey study (N = 159/142) among German hospital physicians
suggests that authorizing idiosyncratic deals is a manifestation of employee-orient-
ed leader behavior. Consideration had consistent positive effects on idiosyncratic
deals regarding both professional development and working time flexibility. These
two types had differential effects on two indicators of the quality of working life.
Development related positively to work engagement, flexibility related negatively
to work-family conflict. Cross-lagged correlations supported the proposed direc-
tion of influence between consideration and idiosyncratic deals in a subsample of
repeating responders (n = 91). The relation between development and engagement
appeared to be reciprocal. Longitudinal results for the association between flexibil-
ity and work-family conflict were inconclusive.

A classic distinction in leadership research refers to people- or rela-

tionship-oriented versus task- or performance-oriented leader behavior.
This duality was initially identified in leadership studies at the Ohio State
University in the late 1940s, and the two underlying concepts were termed
“consideration” and “initiating structure” (Stogdill, 1950; Halpin, 1957).
Almost concurrently, researchers at the University of Michigan developed
a similar taxonomy by classifying leaders as either more employee-cen-
tered or production-centered (Katz & Kahn, 1952; Likert, 1961). Since then,
an extensive number of studies have supported the validity of this dis-
tinction (Korman, 1966; Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies,
1
Address correspondence to Severin Hornung, Department of Management and Market-
ing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong or e-mail
(mssev@polyu.edu.hk).
2
This study was part of a research project on the quality of working life of hospital physicians,
conducted at Ludwig-Maximilians-University’s Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupa-
tional, Social, and Environmental Medicine, and was funded by the German Medical Asso-
ciation. Additional support was provided by the third author’s H. J. Heinz II professorship.

DOI 10.2466/07.13.14.21.PR0.108.1.59-74 ISSN 0033-2941

60 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.

2004). Moreover, leader consideration has been established as the more

relevant dimension for a wide range of positive individual and group out-
comes (e.g., job satisfaction, work motivation, satisfaction with the lead-
er, and group cohesion), whereas initiating structure appears to be more
strongly associated with explicitly performance-related criteria (House,
Filley, & Kerr, 1971; Judge, et al., 2004; Tabernero, Chambel, Curral, & Ara-
na 2009). Although task-oriented and people-oriented leadership behav-
iors are not mutually exclusive, evidence suggests that leaders typically
tend to emphasize one of the two styles (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2003). The pres-
ent study focused on leader consideration, which, in the tradition of the
human relations movement, emphasizes humanistic values and social re-
lationships at work (Katz & Kahn, 1952; Likert, 1961).
Employee-oriented leaders are portrayed as empowering and sup-
porting their subordinates, showing respect and concern for their person-
al needs, and caring about their well-being (Bass, 1990; Judge, et al., 2004).
Although leader consideration has long been suggested to be conducive
to experienced quality of working life by employees, little is known about
the specific actions people-oriented leaders take to support the welfare of
their followers (Likert, 1967). Trying to address this knowledge gap, the
present study links the classic leadership dimension of consideration to
more recent research on individualized working conditions obtained by
employees by means of individual bargaining. Idiosyncratic deals (called
“i-deals” by some authors) are personalized arrangements workers ne-
gotiate with their employer to make their jobs more supportive of their
individual needs, preferences, and aspirations (Rousseau, 2001, 2005;
Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). That said, idiosyncratic deals refer to
negotiated deviations from organizational practices regarding standard-
ized work and employment conditions. What’s more, idiosyncratic deals
have been suggested to be mutually beneficial for employees and employ-
ers by increasing the fit between the person and the job and thereby pro-
viding conditions which support the worker’s well-being and sustained
performance.
Personalization through idiosyncratic deals can refer to a wide range
of work and employment aspects, corresponding to the heterogeneous na-
ture of individual needs and preferences (Rousseau, et al., 2006). Earli-
er studies, however, have identified two broader types of arrangements
which seem to be most prevalent: customized professional development
opportunities and special flexibility in working times (��������������
Hornung, Rous-
seau, & Glaser, 2008, 2009����������������������������������������������
). Development idiosyncratic deals allow work-
ers to build up special skills, better align their job duties with profession-
al interests, and pursue individual career goals. Flexibility idiosyncratic
deals personalize the scheduling of work and increase employee influence
 EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 61

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.

er’s responsiveness to individual employees’ needs, which, in turn, should

lead to a more positive assessment of the working situation by the recipi-
ents of these special arrangements. Based on the predicted differential ef-
fects of the two types of idiosyncratic deals under study, Hypothesis 3,
therefore, stated that positive indirect effects of leader consideration on
work engagement will be mediated by development idiosyncratic deals
(H3a) and negative indirect effects of leader consideration on work-family
conflict will be mediated by flexibility idiosyncratic deals (H3b).
Method
Participants
A two-wave survey study was conducted among medical doctors
from two hospitals in southern Germany. The first wave took place in
spring 2007, the second approximately 1 yr. later. In both instances, some
300 surveys were distributed via the internal mail delivery system, out of
which N = 159 (53.0%) were returned in the first wave and N = 142 (47.3%)
in the second wave directly to the researchers’ university. All participants
signed and returned a letter of informed consent approved by the univer-
sity’s internal review board. Precoded identification numbers on the ques-
tionnaires allowed matching of 91 (30.3%) repeating responders across the
two waves.
In Wave 1, 74 (46.5%) of the participants were women, and 21 (13.2%)
worked part-time. Mean age was 39.4 yr. (SD = 9.0), and average tenure
in the organization was 8.3 yr. (SD = 7.4). The sample consisted of 59 r��� es-
ident physicians (37.1%), 47 fully licensed physicians (29.6%), 30 senior
physicians (18.9%), 19 chief physicians (11.9%), and 4 respondents (2.5%)
who chose not to specify their position. Wave 2 included 69 (48.6%) fe-
male doctors and 24 (16.9%) part-time workers. Mean age and tenure were
38.8 yr. (SD = 9.2) and 8.1 yr. (SD = 7.2). This time, data were gathered from
66 r������������������������������������������������������������������������
esident physicians (46.5%),
�����������������������������������������������������
38 �����������������������������������������
fully licensed physicians (26.7%),
���������������
24 se-
nior physicians (16.9%), 13 chief physicians (9.1%), and 1 unspecified par-
ticipant (0.7%). Comparisons of variable means (t tests) and distributions
(chi-squared tests) indicated that in terms of demographic and structural
characteristics, the group of repeating responders (n = 91) did not differ sig-
nificantly from one-time responders in either the first or the second wave.
Measures
Leader consideration.—Employee-oriented leader behavior was mea-
sured with seven items from the Consideration scale of the widely used
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ; Halpin, 1957). Re-
spondents were instructed to rate their immediate supervisors. Sample
items are: “He/she is friendly and approachable,” “He/she is willing to
make changes,” and “He/she looks out for the personal welfare of indi-
 EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 63

vidual group members.” The questionnaire used a 5-point frequency scale

with anchors of 1: Never and 5: Always. Internal consistency (Cronbach
alpha) was α1 = .91 in Wave 1 and α2 = .89 in Wave 2.
Idiosyncratic deals.—Development and flexibility idiosyncratic deals
were measured with an adapted version of the German idiosyncratic deals
scale by Hornung, et al. (2008). Participants rated the extent to which they
had negotiated personalized working conditions deviating from applica-
ble standards on a 5-point scale (1: Not at all to 5: To a very large extent).
Development idiosyncratic deals were measured with the following three
items: “Special opportunities for skill development,” “Special support for
career development,���������������������������������������������������������
”��������������������������������������������������������
and ���������������������������������������������������
“��������������������������������������������������
Special job duties or responsibilities.�����������
”����������
���������
Flexibil-
ity idiosyncratic deals were assessed with another set of three items: “Spe-
cial working time flexibility,” “An individually customized work sched-
ule,” and “More influence over my working hours.” Internal consistency
was α1 and α 2 = .83 for Development idiosyncratic deals in both waves, and
α1 = .81 and α2 = .85 for Flexibility idiosyncratic deals.
Work-family conflict.—Interference between work and private life was
assessed with the 5-item scale developed by Netemeyer, et al. (1996), the
German version of which has been validated in previous studies (Hor-
nung & Glaser, 2009). A sample item is, “The demands of my work inter-
fere with my home and family life.” A 5-point response format was used
(1: Not at all to 5: To a very great extent), and reliability was α1 = .93 and
α2 = .89 for Waves 1 and 2.
Work engagement.—Work-related well-being was measured with the
German version of the widely used Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). This scale comprises 17 items allocated to the
three subscales of Vigor (6 items), Dedication (5 items), and Absorption (6
items). Sample items representing these three dimensions are “At my job,
I feel strong and vigorous,” “I am enthusiastic about my job,” and “I feel
happy when I work intensely.” Participants rated how often they expe-
rienced such positive states at work on a 7-point scale (1: Never to 7: Al-
ways/Every day). Overall internal consistency was α1 = α 2 = .93.
Control variables.—Sex (0: Male and 1: Female) and part-time employ-
ment status (0: Full-time and 1: Part-time) were measured with dichot-
omous variables; age and organizational tenure were reported in years;
a categorical variable assessed position in the medical hierarchy (1: Res-
ident physician, 2: Fully licensed physician, 3: Senior physician, and 4:
Chief physician).
Analyses
Analyses were based on structural equation modeling using the soft-
ware package AMOS 17.0 (e.g., Byrne, 2001). The two overlapping cross-
sectional samples obtained in Waves 1 and 2 were examined in two-group
64 S. HORNUNG, ET AL.

analyses (N = 159/142), wherein path coefficients were estimated separate-

ly for each group and fit indices were based on the combined data (Kline,
2004). Study constructs were modeled as latent variables and an accepted
set of goodness-of-fit indices with conventional cut-offs was applied. A
relative chi-squared value (c²/df ) of up to 3.0 was considered acceptable.
Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) should not be lower than .90. The Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) is not supposed to exceed values of .08 (Byrne,
2001; Kline, 2004). Mediated effects in the structural model were assessed
through Sobel tests (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
The smaller longitudinal sample (n = 91) was used to test for the pre-
dominant causal direction between study variables. Taking into account
the moderate sample size and statistical power, this additional step was
based on manifest variables and partial correlations. Each path in the
cross-sectional model was tested in a separate cross-lagged correlation
model (Schmitt, 1975; Locascio, 1982). Each model contained four vari-
ables (i.e., predictor and criterion variable at both T1 and T2) and all six
possible correlations among those. Partial longitudinal correlations be-
tween predictor T1 and criterion T2 were compared with the reverse rela-
tion between predictor T2 and criterion T1. In this step, significance was
extended to p < .10 for interpretation.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all vari-
ables in Waves 1 and 2 are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Correlations of
study constructs in the longitudinal sample of repeating responders are
displayed in Table 3.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Correlations in Wave 1 (N = 159)
M SD r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Female a

2. Age, yr. 39.4 9.0 −.26‡

3. Tenure, yr. 8.3 7.4 −.18† .80‡
4. Part-timea .30‡ .09 .01
5. Positiona −.34‡ .79‡ .68‡ −.07
6. Leader Consideration 3.3 0.7 .08 −.41‡ −.34‡ −.09 −.25‡
7. Development Idiosyncratic
deals 2.1 1.4 −.03 .25‡ .29‡ .05 .42‡ .17†
8. FlexibilityIdiosyncratic
deals 1.8 1.2 .12 .11 .09 .39‡ .14 .11 .54‡
9. Work Engagement 5.2 0.8 −.06 .15 .12 −.08 .25‡ .18† .33‡ .11
10. Work-family Conflict 3.8 0.8 .02 −.35‡ −.24‡ −.21‡ −.15 .02 −.00 −.16† .00
a
Categorical variables (see sample description). †p < .05. ‡p < .01.
 EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 65

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.

Kenny (1986) was established for the effects of Leader Consideration on

Work-family Conflict and on Work Engagement in Wave 1, whereas only
partial mediation of the latter effect was observed in Wave 2.

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.

tent of employees’ work-family conflict were fully mediated by flexibil-

ity idiosyncratic deals. These cross-sectional results were partly backed
by cross-lagged correlations, which supported the suggested direction of
influence between leader consideration and both types of idiosyncratic
deals. For the relation between development idiosyncratic deals and work
engagement, longitudinal findings point toward a reciprocal association.
That is, while development idiosyncratic deals seem to enhance the ex-
perience of positive work-related states, highly engaged workers also ap-
pear more likely to actively seek out special development opportunities
(Grant & Ashford, 2008). This interpretation corresponds with the notion
of reciprocal determination between people and their work environment,
which has been suggested to potentially result in positive gain spirals,
in which the accumulation of job resources and work-related well-being
mutually reinforce each other (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner,
2008). The fact that no evidence was found for 1-yr. longitudinal associ-
ations between Flexibility Idiosyncratic deals and Work-family Conflict
may partly be attributable to structural (e.g., marital status and number
of children) and psychological characteristics (e.g., family cohesion, so-
cial support) of the family situation, which were not included in the pres-
ent study (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Stevens, Kiger, & Riley, 2002). Re-
sults of the additional cross-lagged correlation analysis between the two
independent variables, however, also suggest an explanation rooted in
the work situation. As work engagement at T1 related positively to work-
family conflict at T2, it appears that employees highly involved in their
jobs may find it particularly difficult to manage the work-home interface
(Adams, et al., 1996). Although developmental idiosyncratic deals did not
directly exacerbate work-family conflict, this finding still points toward
potential tensions between consequences of both types of personalized
arrangements, which previously researchers have speculated about (Hor-
nung, et al., 2008). Going beyond the scope of the present study, the pos-
sibility of increased work-family conflict as a downside of work engage-
ment should be subjected to further research.
Finally, results also highlighted interesting differential effects regard-
ing the structural antecedents of idiosyncratic deals. Whereas develop-
ment idiosyncratic deals were positively influenced by position in the
medical hierarchy, the extent of flexibility idiosyncratic deals tended to
be higher among part-time workers. These findings correspond well with
earlier results on structural antecedents of idiosyncratic deals (Hornung,
et al., 2008) as well as previously voiced concerns that these arrangements
may, to some extent, aggravate existing inequalities in the distribution of
workplace resources (Rousseau, 2001, 2005). Thus, this pattern may be
taken as an indication for cumulative advantages, or the so-called Mat-
 EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 71

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.

To conclude, the presented results contribute to the evolving per-

spective of idiosyncratic deals as part of the human side of organization
(Likert, 1967). Employee-oriented leaders appear to put their followers’
particular needs for professional growth and work-life balance above bu-
reaucratic notions of standardization and equal treatment without regard
for the individual person (Weber, 1968). Using such informal practices to
take advantage of secondary elasticities in organizational rules and regu-
lations, people-oriented leadership could make an important difference
with respect to employees’ quality of working life.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996) Relationships of job and family in-
volvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satis-
faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411-420.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008) Work engagement:
an emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-
200.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (1999) Predictors of work-family conflict and
satisfaction with family, job, career, and life. Psychological Reports, 85, 893-903.
Byrne, B. M. (2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Durán, A., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2004) Engagement and burnout: analyzing their
association patterns. Psychological Reports, 94, 1050-1084.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008) The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008) Positive gain spirals at
work: from job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit
innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78-91.
Halpin, A. W. (1957) Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Colum-
bus, OH: Ohio State Univer. Press, Bureau of Business Research.
Hollander, E. P. (1958) Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Re-
view, 65, 117-127.
Hornung, S., & Glaser, J. (2009) Home-based telecommuting and quality of life: fur-
ther evidence on an employee-oriented human resource practice. Psychological
Reports, 104, 395-402.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008) �������������������������������
Creating flexible work arrange-
ments through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 655-664.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2009) Why supervisors make idiosyn-
cratic deals: antecedents and outcomes of idiosyncratic deals from a managerial
perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 738-764.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010) Beyond
top-down and bottom-up work redesign: customizing job content through idio-
syncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 187-215.
 EMPLOYEE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 73

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.

Schmitt, N. (1975) A causal correlational analysis of expectancy theory hypotheses.

Psychological Reports, 37, 427-431.
Stevens, D. P., Kiger, G., & Riley, P. J. (2002) Coming unglued? Workplace character-
istics, work satisfaction, and family cohesion. Social Behavior and Personality, 30,
289-302.
Stogdill, R. M. (1950) Leadership, membership, and organization. Psychological Bul-
letin, 47, 1-14.
Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J., Curral, L., & Arana, J. M. (2009) The role of task-ori-
ented versus relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and group
performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 1391-1404.
Weber, M. (1968) Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. New York:
Bedminster Press.

Accepted December 20, 2010.

View publication stats