The implications of (dys)functional and (un)fair line manager flexibility i-deals for subordinates: balancing flexibility with perceived support and fairness

Abstract

Line managers influence subordinates’ experiences through their supervisory and supporting capacities. Line managers have been examined as implementors of HRM, but the implications of them concurrently being recipients of HR practices remain overlooked. This paper examines the distinct consequences of flexibility i-deals held by line managers given their role in supporting subordinates and as gatekeepers of flexibility. Findings are based on 40 interviews - with line managers and subordinates as key stakeholders, and HR practitioners who provided policy context for their organisations - in the construction and finance industries. Line manager flexibility i-deals are considered functional when subordinates feel sufficiently supported to execute their role. Factors influencing perceptions of support are identified. Line manager flexibility i-deals are considered fair when subordinates also have access to flexibility, versus unfair when line managers respond to their i-deal in ways that restrict subordinate flexibility. Based on third-party perceptions, a theoretical model of the functionality and fairness of line managers’ flexibility i-deals is proposed, drawing on distributive justice and perceived organisational support. These factors are of theoretical and pragmatic relevance in a context of rising worker flexibility and illuminate the importance of differentiating between i-deals held by those with and without line management responsibilities.