Attached to or stuck in? How resource attributes of i-deals influence the variation in continuance or affective commitment

PurposeThis study aims to identify when and why receiving i-deals will result in an increase in affective commitment rather than continuance commitment. As affective commitment yields long-term benefits for organizations than continuance commitment, this work will help organizations accrue maximum benefits from granting i-deals.Design/methodology/approachThis study develops a cognitive model delineating the process between i-deal receipt and the variation in i-dealers’ continuance or affective commitment.FindingsAfter receiving i-deals, i-dealers’ perceived valence may change with i-dealers’ evaluations of i-deal resources under the condition of coworkers' negative reactions or organizational investment. The i-deal valence changes trigger i-dealers’ internal or external attributions of coworkers' negative reactions or organizational investment, which leads to the variation in continuance or affective commitment. The changes of affective commitment also affect the variation in continuance commitment.Originality/valueIntegrating expectancy theory and attribution theory, this research addresses inconsistent findings about i-deals’ effect on continuance or affective commitment by revealing the critical factors that lead to the variation in the two types of commitment. The proposed model offers new theoretical rationale for why i-dealers may not reciprocate the goodwill of i-deals to their organizations. This study suggests i-dealers will engage in attributions rather than being passive recipients of their coworkers' negative reactions, which challenges previous view that the effectiveness of i-deals is ultimately determined by coworkers' acceptance. This research also extends the i-deal dynamics literature by depicting how i-deal valence changes arise and influence continuance or affective commitment.