Exploring the Impact of Leader-Member I-Deals Incongruence on Employee Performance through Cognitive Job Crafting

In today’s proactive work environment, understanding how employees cope with the non-receipt of idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), particularly regarding leader-member i-deal incongruence, is crucial for enhancing job performance and overall organisational outcomes. Existing theories on i-deals have focused on social exchange mechanisms and the benefits of received i-deals, with few studies examining the effects of non-receipt of i-deals. These studies show that denying i-deals can be detrimental, sometimes overwhelming their benefits and purpose. Moreover, there is a significant gap in knowledge regarding how employees cope and adjust when they do not receive requested i-deals, particularly when considering their goal-oriented nature. This is important because understanding how employees respond to unmet i-deal requests can inform more effective work design strategies, leading to improved employee well-being and productivity. In light of this, the current research investigates the utilisation of cognitive job crafting, which has been shown to help address person-job misfits as a coping mechanism in situations of leader-member i-deal incongruence.
Grounded in Goal-setting and Person-Job Fit Theories, this study introduces the novel concept of leader-member i-deal incongruence. It describes the mismatch between the personalised work arrangements employees seek and those deemed appropriate by their leaders based on differing expectations. Data were collected from public-sector employees and their supervisors in Oyo State, Nigeria, using paper-based questionnaires. A three-wave longitudinal design was employed, with data gathered at three different points six weeks apart, to establish causal inference and ensure robust findings. The study involved 761 members and their 124 leaders participating in all three waves. The hypotheses were tested using polynomial regression and response surface analysis in order to ensure a comprehensive and rigorous research process.
The findings revealed a curvilinear (bell-shaped/inverted U-shaped) relationship between i-deal incongruence (i.e., the independent variable) and employee job performance (i.e., the dependent variable), with performance peaking at moderate levels of incongruence, where the difference in expectations of i-deals between leaders and members was not too high. However, contrary to the initial expectations, the incongruence of leader-member i-deals hindered cognitive job crafting (i.e., the mediating variable). Specifically, the results did not support the expectation that employees would engage in cognitive job crafting the most at moderate levels of incongruence. Instead, the findings indicated that, as the incongruence between leader and member i-deals increased, it led to less effective cognitive job crafting, with no curvilinear relationship observed. However, cognitive job crafting partially mediated the relationship between leader-member i-deal incongruence and job performance. Furthermore, the results showed that employees with proactive personalities (moderating variable) were more likely to engage in cognitive job crafting when faced with low to moderate levels of incongruence. This was because they better managed and adapted to these discrepancies when the incongruence of leader-member i-deals was not excessively high, preventing it from becoming threatening and overly challenging to adjust.
This research offers a new perspective by applying Goal-setting and Person-Job fit Theories to i-deals, moving beyond the traditional social exchange theory. It addresses a gap in understanding how employees cope with unmet i-deal requests, providing fresh insights into the dynamics of employee adaptation. Practically, the study provides guidance for HR practices by highlighting the importance of fostering environments that encourage proactive behaviours to align employee needs with organisational goals.