{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03397212543554007, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002613240418118467, 'mean_word_length': 5.565714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bankers closing idiosyncratic deals: Implications for organisational cynicism

To better meet flexibility demands and increase person–job 
fit, organisations might offer their employees the opportunity 
to negotiate task‐related arrangements, namely, idiosyncratic deals, referred to as “i‐deals.” However, not every 
employee who requests an i‐deal is successful in their 
negotiations. Thus, this study aims to further the 
knowledge of potential shortcomings of task‐related i‐deals 
and the role of supervisors in determining them. Drawing 
on social exchange theory, we hypothesise that low‐quality 
supervisor–employee relationships (i.e., leader–member 
exchange) are more likely to result in unsuccessful 
task‐related i‐deal negotiations, which consequently might 
provoke increased organisational cynicism. We analysed 
three waves of data from 202 Swiss bankers who had 
requested task‐related i‐deals within the investigated 
business cycle. The results supported our hypothesis. Our 
findings highlight the role of supervisors in reducing the 
potential costs of using task‐related i‐deals as employee‐ 
initiated job design practices.