ABSTRACT
Rousseau's book on i-deals has inspired researchers to study idiosyncratic deals or 'i-deals' as a means of introducing differentiation in working conditions. I-deals are personalized employment arrangements negotiated between employee and employer. This chapter focuses on two rules: equity and need. It examines whether coworkers judge the distributive fairness of i-deals based on equity, need, or a combination of both. Distributive justice theory suggests that the way people judge the fairness of allocation outcomes depends on the type of resource involved in the allocation. Employees can use different rules to assess the distributive justice of a certain outcome. Ample research has shown that men and women allocate rewards differently among themselves and others. Traditional distributive justice literature has identified three dominant distributive justice principles: equality, equity, and need. Research on coworkers' distributive judgments of i-deals has practical relevance because they can affect their behavioral reactions, which can influence the effectiveness of i-deals.
