Rethinking idiosyncratic deals: An integrative review, meta-analysis and research agenda

Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have attracted substantial scholarly interest over the past two decades, yet the literature lacks an up-to-date review that consolidates and critically evaluates existing knowledge. We conduct an integrative review of 163 empirical articles and develop a framework organised around four core mechanisms: valuation, value realisation, legitimacy and differentiation. This framework explains how i-deals are sought and granted, how their value is realised, when they are perceived as fair and acceptable, and how they create differences among employees. In doing so, it shows that i-deals are not simply beneficial individualised work arrangements, but practices whose consequences depend on how they are negotiated and implemented. To complement this qualitative synthesis, we conduct a meta-analysis of 69 primary studies from 62 articles (N = 22,469) to systematically examine the effects of different types of i-deals. We find that task and work responsibility i-deals show the most consistent positive associations with performance and relational outcomes, whereas development and flexibility i-deals display more uneven effects. Our moderation analysis further shows that development i-deals, but not non-development i-deals, were reliably associated with in-role performance. This review highlights key directions for future research, particularly regarding the conditions under which i-deals are appropriate and how they can inform HR practices.