“Sweeten the (i)-deal”: unveiling power and influence dynamics in family small and medium-sized enterprises

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ Renedo, S., Martínez-Corts, I., Di Marco, D. and Medina, F.J. (2024), "“Sweeten the (i)- deal”: unveiling power and influence dynamics in family small and medium-sized enterprises", Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-ofprint. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-06-2024-0127 This author accepted manuscript is deposited under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC) licence. This means that anyone may distribute, adapt, and build upon the work for non-commercial purposes, subject to full attribution. If you wish to use this manuscript for commercial purposes, please contact [email protected]. “ Sweeten the (i)-deal ” : unveiling power and influence dynamics in family small and medium-sized enterprises Purpose Family small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent a substantial part of many economies. In these organizations, close and informal relationships between employers and employees often foster a mutual understanding of each other ’ s needs, facilitating the negotiation of idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), special employment conditions tailored for individual employees. However, research on how i-deals are negotiated in family SMEs, especially regarding power dynamics and influence, remains limited. This study aims to identify the types of i-deals negotiated in family SMEs and explore the role of power and influence in these negotiations. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 45 employees and 15 employers from Spanish family SMEs. Data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti 8, and thematic analysis was performed. Findings The study concludes that task, flexibility, financial and development i-deals are particularly negotiated in family SMEs. It identifies that referent and expert power play an important role in initiating these negotiations. Furthermore, rational tactics are generally employed for negotiating work performance, soft tactics for employment-related aspects, and hard tactics for work flexibility. Additionally, the study identified gender differences in the negotiation of i-deals. Research limitations/implications This study enhances i-deal literature by highlighting the distinct characteristics of family SMEs and their impact on ideal negotiations. The findings suggest that power dynamics and influence tactics in family SMEs differ from those in larger firms. Moreover, certain i-deals may encounter resistance due to concerns about organizational performance and economic implications. Understanding these factors is essential for developing effective negotiation strategies in family SMEs. Originality/value This study offers a dual perspective, analyzing the power and influence tactics used by both employees and employers in family SME i-deal negotiations, and highlights highlighting gendered dynamics in these processes. Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5 Santiago Renedo , AFF1 [email protected], Inés Martínez-Corts , AFF1 [email protected], Donatella Di Marco AFF1 [email protected] and Francisco J. Medina , AFF1 [email protected] AFF1 Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain In é s Mart í nez-Corts can be contacted at: [email protected] i In this section only the affiliation field can be edited. If any other changes are required in this section please add a comment. Keywords: i-deals, Family firms, Power, Influence dynamics 1.  Introduction Anna: “ I want to stay here. In my previous jobs, I never had the flexibility to come in later so I could take my children to school. It's a big motivation for me now ” . Currently, Anna ’ s situation reflects a growing trend in organizations globally: negotiations between employers and employees seeking personalized job arrangements are increasingly common. These negotiations, known as idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), are voluntary, personalized agreements of a nonstandard nature negotiated between individual employers and employees, designed to benefit each party (Rousseau et  al., 2006). These negotiations can occur either during the initial interview (ex-ante i-deals) or after the employee has been with the organization for a period of time (ex-post i-deals). Regarding content, i-deals encompass different types: development i-deals enhance professional skills; task i-deals modify or enrich job tasks; flexibility i-deals adjust schedules (schedule-flexibility ideals) or work locations (location-flexibility i-deals); reduced-workload i-deals; and financial i-deals typically involve salary negotiations (Hornung et  al., 2008). These i-deals can be particularly relevant in family small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for different reasons. Firstly, family firms often cultivate close, trusting relationships between employers and employees, which serve as a foundation for negotiating i-deals (Nordqvist and Melin, 2010). Secondly, family SMEs do not usually have formal Human Resource (HR) policies and collective bargaining, allowing greater flexibility to negotiate particular terms and conditions of employment directly between employers and employees (Dex and Scheibl, 2002). Thirdly, a long-term orientation intrinsic to many family businesses encourages the negotiation of agreements that promote employee satisfaction and retention (Seyed, 2022). Fourthly, shared family values foster a mutual commitment between employers and employees, facilitating discussions on personalized arrangements (Alayo et  al., 2023). Fifthly, the reduced bureaucracy typical of family SMEs expedites the negotiation and implementation of these tailored agreements (Dex and Scheibl, 2002). Lastly, a focus on employee well-being motivates employers in these organizations to explore ideals that cater to different aspects of their employees' needs and preferences (Nordqvist and Melin, 2010). These combined factors create an environment conducive to effective i-deal negotiations in family SMEs. Research on i-deals in family SMEs has primarily focused on identifying individual factors, such as self-efficacy and negotiation skills (e.g. Anand et  al., 2021), and organizational antecedents (e.g. Dex and Scheibl, 2002). Additionally, studies have explored the consequences of i-deal negotiations, such as their impact on job satisfaction and performance (e.g. Bal et  al., 2012; Simpson et  al., 2012). However, recent literature review by Simosi et  al. (2021) underscores the need for a deeper understanding of the negotiation process itself, specifically, how and why these negotiations initiate. One potential mechanism highlighted is the perception of power held by both employees and employers. In non-family and large organizations, negotiations often begin due to hierarchical authority and influence (Giessner and Schubert, 2007). However, the dynamics in family SMEs may differ considerably. Research suggests that in family SMEs, the initiation of i-deal negotiations may be influenced by personal relationships between employers and employees ( Nordqvist and Melin, 2010), as well as the level of experience held by the parties involved (Rahaman et  al., 2021), which could facilitate the negotiation process. Power manifests through the exertion of influence. On one hand, it grants individuals the capacity to sway or direct the actions and decisions of others. On the other hand, influence tactics serve as the mechanisms to wield this power effectively (Lines, 2007). In the realm of power studies, research reveals disparities in the utilization of influence tactics based on organizational size, including family firms. For example, prior studies indicate that rational tactics become more prevalent in larger organizations due to the normative and formal nature of their operations (e.g. Lee et  al., 2017). In such contexts, adherence to established procedures and rules necessitates the use of logical and rational approaches in decision-making processes. However, while not their primary focus, Wilkinson et  al. (2007) discovered that, contrary to non-family and/or large organizations where rational tactics are most effective, family SMEs may find soft tactics to be equally or more effective in certain instances. These tactics facilitate the cultivation of personal relationships founded on trust and informal communication, which are hallmark characteristics of family SMEs (Nordqvist and Melin, 2010). This article aims to analyze i-deal negotiations in Spanish family SMEs through semi-structured interviews with both employers and employees, contributing to the i-deal literature in several ways. Firstly, by incorporating perspectives from both sides, it provides a comprehensive view of the negotiation process (Hornung et  al., 2008Hornung et  al., 2008). Furthermore, it extends beyond traditional i-deal studies typically focused on large organizations and traditional work environments, highlighting how the unique characteristics of family SMEs influence both the types of i-deals negotiated and the negotiation process itself. For example, in today ’ s global context, where remote work is increasingly common, understanding how family SMEs handle location-flexibility i-deals is particularly relevant. The current study also identifies the specific types of i-deals negotiated in family SMEs, which raises awareness of the needs of both employers and employees, enabling them to develop creative solutions to common organizational issues. Additionally, it explores the role of power and influence, explaining key sources of power in family SMEs and how different influence tactics are used to negotiate different i-deals. In fact, the power dynamics required for negotiations can vary depending on the organizational setting. For example, in large organizations, expert power tends to be highly valued ( Qu and Pao, 2012) whereas personal relationships often play a more important role in family SMEs, facilitating the negotiation of i-deals. Therefore, understanding the organizational context is essential to identifying and enhancing favorable power dynamics for successful negotiations. Moreover, influence processes in i-deal negotiations are shaped by the potential resistance anticipated from the other party (Mart í nez-Corts et  al., 2008). In family SMEs, not all i-deals are equally accepted; for example, employers may be more resistant to negotiating i-deals related to tasks, locationflexibility, and holidays, as these can directly affect organizational performance. As a result, the influence tactics used to reach an agreement must be sensitive to these potential sources of resistance. 2.  Theoretical framework 2.1  Family SMEs: a particular context for i-deal negotiation Family firms currently represent 89.0% of the Spanish market and between 65% and 80% across Europe, with the majority being SMEs (European Commission, 2024). These family SMEs are characterized by having fewer than 250 employees, with family members holding voting control and occupying managerial positions (Calabr ò and Mussolino, 2013). This particular context features certain characteristics that facilitate the negotiation of i-deals. Firstly, the less hierarchical structure of family SMEs allows for quick adjustments in roles and responsibilities, facilitating the negotiation of i-deals related to work flexibility (Martin et  al., 2016). Secondly, these organizations are often willing to customize employee tasks and functions, facilitating the negotiation of task i-deals that align with individual skills and preferences (Franco and Franco, 2017). Thirdly, although career growth in family SMEs may be limited (Walmsley et  al., 2012), employees often negotiate expanded roles or diverse projects to enhance their development and motivation (e.g. Ngobeni and Dhanpat, 2022; Shams et  al., 2022). Fourthly, their commitment to employee well-being allows for tailored arrangements that address individual needs, such as health concerns or family responsibilities, facilitating reduced-workload i-deals (Nordqvist and Melin, 2010). Finally, their familiarity and small size facilitates knowledge sharing (KS) between employers and employees (Rossignoli et  al., 2024). KS involves employers and employees sharing tacit and explicit knowledge within the organization (Anand et  al., 2021). This sharing allows them to align  personal and organizational goals more effectively, facilitating the negotiation of most i-deals. However, all that glitters is not gold; some characteristics of family SMEs may also make certain i-deals difficult to negotiate or even lead to their rejection. Firstly, Presenteeism Culture often prevails in this context (Lamane-Harim et  al., 2023), which forces workers to be physically present at the organization for more hours than necessary. Spanish SME data, mainly composed of SMEs, indicates higher presenteeism, offering fewer flexible schedules than larger organizations (Adecco, 2021). Secondly, the small workforce complicates operations, especially during peak periods like summer in high-activity sectors (Simpson et  al., 2012). This makes negotiating holiday i-deals challenging, despite their importance for employee well-being and adaptation (Hornung et  al., 2008; Igusa, 2011). Thirdly, compared to larger companies, family SMEs typically have more limited financial and structural resources, which can impact their ability to approve i-deals, particularly those involving salary increases, additional benefits, or improvements in working conditions (Carlson et  al., 2006). The perceived costs associated with an i-deal may lead to its denial. Finally, in family SMEs, changes in roles or responsibilities can disrupt workflows, leading employers to prioritize immediate operational demands over customizing tasks for employees (Palmi é et  al., 2016). Therefore, this study aims to investigate why certain i-deals are negotiated, or rejected, more frequently than others in family SME settings. 2.2  Power dynamics in i-deal negotiations In successful i-deal negotiations, the relative power between employers and employees plays an important role. Power can be viewed from a dual perspective. Firstly, the resource-control perspective suggests that empowered individuals control valuable resources. French and Raven (2004)French and Raven (1959) identified six power bases based on perceived control over resources: reward power, where agents can provide rewards; coercive power, where agents can impose punishments; legitimate power, where agents have authority to make requests; expert power, where agents are recognized for their expertise; referent power, where trust or admiration for agents is present; and informational power, where agents control or distribute important information. This perspective has been widely applied in negotiation studies (e.g. Schaerer et  al., 2020), revealing that employers and employees prioritize different power bases in negotiations. For instance, employers value employees' expert, referent, and informational power in negotiations, while employees value employers' expert, legitimate, referent, reward, and coercive power (Dobrijevic et  al., 2011). Another approach to analyzing bargaining power concerns individuals' personal sense of power or their self-perceived ability to influence others. According to the inhibition theory (Keltner et  al., 2003), self-perceived power enables employers and employees to proactively pursue new goals (Anderson et  al., 2012). Conversely, a lack of self-perceived power triggers an internal behavioral inhibition system, focusing attention on potential negative outcomes such as punishment and restraining new attitudes, ideas, and behaviors (Anderson et  al., 2012). Therefore, the personal sense of power held by either employees or employers can either facilitate or hinder the initiation of i-deal negotiations. Research indicates that expert and referent power are relevant in negotiating i-deals, especially within the unique context of family SMEs. Firstly, due to their small size, family SMEs rely heavily on individual skills. Employees possessing specialized knowledge (expert power) in different critical areas have a distinct advantage in negotiating ideals due to their significant contribution to the organization (Rahaman et  al., 2021). Specifically, employees with expert power can influence the development of new products and services, which is vital for enhancing the organization ’ s competitiveness (Lines, 2007). Secondly, personal relationships in family SMEs are characterized by higher levels of trust between employers and employees. This trust enhances the role of referent power in influencing dynamics during  i-deal negotiations (Petrakis and Kostis, 2015). Therefore, this study aims to explore  employers' and employees' perceptions of power in i-deal negotiations within family SMEs. 2.3  The use of influence tactics in i-deal negotiations Power represents the ability to influence others within an organization (Lines, 2007). Both employees and employers utilize different influence tactics to increase the likelihood of achieving a desired i-deal. According to Falbe and Yukl (1992), influence tactics are categorized as rational, hard, and soft based on the rationality of arguments presented and the emotional appeal they aim to evoke. Hard tactics involve assertively proposing a solution to maintain control, focusing less on understanding and more on compliance, resulting in potential negative emotional reactions due to their low rationality. In contrast, soft tactics appeal to the emotions and values of the target, striking a moderate balance between rationality  and emotional appeal. Rational tactics, meanwhile, emphasize logical reasoning without emotional manipulation, aiming to clarify the necessity and implementation of the i-deal. These tactics are employed based on perceived resistance from the target and the power of the agent (e.g. Mart í nezCorts et  al., 2008). For instance, hard tactics are deployed when resistance is expected and the agent holds advantages such as status, tenure, or privileged information. Soft tactics are preferred in scenarios where little resistance is expected and the agent lacks status. Rational tactics are utilized when resistance is minimal and power is balanced between parties, particularly when seeking mutual benefits. As far as we know, only one prior study specifically addresses i-deal negotiations and the use of influence tactics by employers and employees (Clarke et  al., 2019). These authors underscore the importance of examining influence tactics in such negotiations, focusing primarily on deals related to flexibility (e.g. negotiating task specifics like how, when, and where tasks are performed) and their impact on employee performance evaluations. In this study, we extend this research by analyzing a broader spectrum of i-deals and the influence tactics employed by both employers and employees. Ultimately, our primary objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the i-deal negotiation process. To achieve this goal, we will explore the following research questions.: Q6 What types of i-deals are negotiated in family SMEs, and why?(1) 3.  Method 3.1  Context This study was conducted between January and June 2021 and involved 16 family SMEs located in Andalusia, Spain, primarily from the service sector (65%), with smaller representation from the industrial (10%) and agricultural (10%) sectors. This distribution mirrors official Spanish government statistics (Subdirecci ó n General de Apoyo a las PYMEs, 2021), which indicate that SMEs are most prevalent in the service sector in Spain (73.4%) and particularly in Andalusia (80.0%), followed by construction and agriculture. The organizations included in the study employed between 10 and 200 individuals. Generally, the organizations operated in male-dominated sectors such as construction, transport, and engineering. Notably, only 3 women held managerial positions (18.8% of the total), with female employees predominantly occupying lower-responsibility roles, such as clerical positions. This gender disparity aligns with findings from the study “ The Wage Gap and Female Presence in Management (2021) ” (EADA, 2021), which notes that although the percentage of female employers is higher in SMEs compared to large companies (60.0% versus 40.0%), it remains significantly lower than the proportion of male employers (18.8% women versus 81.2% men). Since we focus on Spanish SMEs organizations, it is important to consider how Spanish legal and cultural context may influence key elements of i-deal negotiation, such as employees ’ ability to negotiate specific terms, distinguish themselves from peers, and the power dynamics in negotiations (Bal, 2017; Wasti et  al., 2022).) Firstly, according to the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2019), Spain has a relatively low union density (15%), similar to France, Portugal and the Netherlands, yet collective bargaining coverage is high, at around 70% of the workforce (Munduate et  al., 2015). A recent report by Eurofound (2024) places Spain within the “ state-centered governance cluster ” and the “ company-centered governance cluster, ” characterized by moderate centralization in collective bargaining. This allows organizations to set pay, working hours, and other terms independently of industrylevel agreements, creating a degree of flexibility for i-deals (Wasti et  al., 2022). Secondly, regarding social values, Spain falls in the mid-range both individualism and power distance according to Hofstede ’ s model (1980), similar to countries like Switzerland, Chile, and Italy (Liao et  al., 2016; Wasti et  al., 2022). Societies with moderate individualism encourage behaviors like initiative-taking and problem-solving from an early age (Tata and Prasad, 2015). This context fosters proactive behaviors, such as negotiating i-deals, with organizational flexibility playing a key role in enabling their implementation (Briggs and Cooper, 2006). Thirdly, in cultures with high power distance, employees may be less inclined to engage in proactive behaviors like negotiating i-deals due to concerns about challenging authority (Rousseau et  al., 2006). In these settings, questioning supervisors' decisions may be frowned upon or punished, limiting autonomy (Evans and Schilke, 2024). In contrast, in low power distance cultures, i-deals are more common, as supervisors often encourage proactive behaviors that align with employee preferences (Rofcanin et  al., 2016). Given Spain ’ s moderate power distance, similar to Canada, France and Italy, the role of supervisors is important in facilitating the negotiation of i-deals (Tang et  al., 2020Tang et  al., 2020). 3.2  Procedure In each organization, 3 or 4 individuals were interviewed, totaling 45 employees and 15 employers. Each interview lasted approximately 45  minutes, and participants provided informed consent, emphasizing the voluntary, confidential, and anonymous nature of their involvement. Data collection encompassed details about the organization (economic sector and workforce size) as well as about employers and employees (pseudonyms, position, age, tenure, gender, education, contract type, and employment status), presented in Table  1. How do family SMEs employees and employers perceive their own and others ’ power in the negotiation of i-deals? (2) Why do employees and employers use influence tactics to negotiate i-deals in family SMEs?(3) Table  1 Characteristic of organizations and interviewees Economic sSector Total no. of employees Characteristics of the interviewees Participants Position Age (in years) Tenure (in years) Gender Education Contract Employmen status Agriculture; farming; other rural sectors 200 Lucas Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 47 20 M HE SE FT Owen Human Resources Technician 41 3 M HE IND FT Camila Internal Communications Manager 49 6.5 F HE IND FT Isabella Administration and Accounting Manager 48 14 F HE IND FT Social Services 150 Allison Technical Secretary 40 20 F P IND FT Landon Accountant 30 4 M HE IND FT Jack Accountant 32 2 M HE IND FT Sophia Technical Project Manager 35 4 F HE IND FT Social Services 20 Nathan Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 33 4 M HE IND FT Elizabeth Office clerk NA 4.1 F FE IND FT Sebastian Logistics Manager 48 5 M S IND FT Claire Technical Engineer 44 5.9 F HE IND FT Construction 50 James Technical Manager 47 9 M HE IND FT Anna Office clerk 42 5.0 F HE IND FT Kaylee Office clerk 29 0.8 F HE TEMP FT Liam Production Manager 41 5.5 M HE IND FT Engineering 15 Oliver Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 53 25 M FE IND FT Jacob Technical Manager 52 9.4 M HE IND FT Elijah Technical Engineer 37 19 M HE IND FT Aaron Service Technician 46 14 M PR IND FT Transport 50 Evan Chief Executive 34 8 M HE IND FT i The table layout displayed in this section is not how it will appear in the final version. The representation below is solely purposed for providing corrections to the table. To view the actual presentation of the table, please click on the located at the top of the page. Officer (CEO) Gavin Operations Manager 34 4.4 M HE IND FT Hannah Office clerk 46 3.6 F FE IND PT Lucy Office clerk 44 3.6 F FE IND PT Basic Metal Production 45 Ashley Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 41 22 F HE SE FT Ava Office clerk 42 18 F FE IND PT Brianna Office clerk 40 17 F FE IND FT Ellie Office clerk 51 8.6 F S IND PT Hotels; tourism; catering 10 Gabriel Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 55 10 M HE SE FT Scarlett Receptionist 43 5 F S PER FT Nora Catering Manager 45 9.5 F S PER FT Engineering 54 Matthew Chief Financial Officer 45 11 M P PER FT Josiah Technical Engineer 51 7.3 M HE PER FT Austin Integration Manager 41 5.7 M HE PER FT Jackson Electro-technical Officer 47 8 M S PER FT Agriculture; farming; other rural sectors 100 Jose Administration and Accounting Manager 39 4 M P PER FT Sadie Human Resources Technician NA 3 F HE T FT Julia Receptionist 47 2 F PR OT FT Marketing and Advertising 17 Ian Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 40 4 M P SE FT Eva Graphic Designer 28 4 F P PER FT Justin Web Designer 27 2 M P PER FT Dylan Graphic Designer 30 3 M P PER FT Education 12 Naomi Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 43 14 F HE SE FT William Technical Manager 43 10.5 M HE PER FT Blake Instructor 33 9 M FE PER FT Lydia Instructor 28 3 F HE T PT Basic Metal Production 20 Asher Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 41 16.5 M HE SE FT Mateo Store Manager 37 14 M S PER FT Table Footnotes We employed purposive sampling, selecting family firms, with fewer than 250 employees and participants who had worked in these organizations for at least one year. Human Resource Consulting firms and business organizations such as the Confederation of Andalusian Entrepreneurs (CEA) facilitated access to organizations meeting these criteria. It is important to note, as Robinson (2014) suggests, that to avoid biases from interviewing only organizations within these organizations, we also asked the interviewed companies to provide contacts of other firms that might be interested. Furthermore, different strategies outlined by Bergen and Labont é (2020) were employed during the interview process to mitigate social desirability bias. These strategies included: ensuring privacy by conducting face-to-face interviews in private settings, with appropriate facilities such as soundproof rooms or secluded spaces, to reduce participants' fear of being overheard; clarifying criteria to ensure participants met the pre-established requirements; explaining the purpose of the study, how the data would be used, and confidentiality measures at the start of the interview to reduce interviewee uncertainty; using open-ended and indirect questions to minimize socially desirable responses; reminding participants several times throughout the interview that their responses would be confidential; probing responses with follow-up questions or requesting examples to ensure more genuine and detailed answers; and avoiding confrontation by employing techniques, such as providing examples, to obtain more honest responses, even if some answers appeared socially influenced. Employer-employee interviews questions were organized into thematic blocks: i-deal negotiations (e.g. have you negotiated anything, with whom); power and influence dynamics (e.g. what factors influenced your decision to initiate Brody Logistics Operator 33 0.6 M S PER FT Engineering 15 Theodore Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 43 12 M HE PER FT Benjamin Human Resources Technician 40 4.5 M P PER FT Kayden Technical Project Manager 32 4.5 M HE PER FT Joshua Electrical Engineer 35 6.8 M HE PER FT Engineering 12 Madison Human Resources Technician 31 1 F HE T FT Amelia Administration and Accounting Manager 29 0.7 F P PER FT Morgan Internal Communications Manager 45 1 F P PER FT Tourism 10 Olivia Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 53 26 F FE SE FT Charlotte Tour Guide NA 6 F S PER FT Sydney Accountant 41 16 F HE PER FT Emma Tour Guide 27 2.4 F HE PER PT Note(s): (M) Male; (F) Female; (NA) No answer; (PR) Primary Education; (S) Secondary Education; (FE) Further Education; (HE) Higher Education; (P) Postgraduate; (SE) Self-Employed; (PER) Permanent; (T) Temporary; (OT) Others; (FT) Full-time; (PT) Part-time. Pseudonyms have been used in order to protect participants' identity. Quotes of participants in italic appear in the results Source(s): Authors ’ own creation Elizabeth (employee): “ I met with Nathan (employer) and told him: I need a clerical staff [ … ] customers are complaining more and more every day because it takes longer to receive delivery notes and other documents [ … ] I need a person to take care of these basic functions, to relieve me of this workload because we are not providing quality service ” . (Rational tactic, Reduce-Workload i-deal). Secondly, soft tactics are predominantly employed in negotiating employment-related conditions such as financial and development i-deals. Both employers and employees find that trust in the other party and tenure facilitate the use of these tactics by fostering stronger personal relationships and mutual understanding of each other ’ s goals. For instance, employees may believe they need several years with the organization to request a salary increase or training courses, while employers offer training opportunities to trusted employees who significantly contribute to the organization ’ s objectives. It ’ s often the case that the most trusted individuals are also the most senior within the organization. Matthew (employer): “ I admit that Jackson (employee)is my top employee. I admire Jackson as a person and as a subordinate. If I were an employee, I would like to be like him [ … ] so, one day I came across an interesting course on programming; I knew it could be good for the company so I asked him if he thought it would be interesting for him. He said yes. I know that if he says yes, it's because he agrees with me, he would not be afraid to tell me if he thought I was wrong ” . (Soft tactic, Development i-deal). Jackson (employee): “ In the third year I had a lot of trust in Matthew (employer) I had more skills than the officer who had more responsibilities than me and Matthew offered me his job. At the time, I suggested that we review my salary. In the end I got a raise. I had been there for three years, and I knew I could do it ” . (Soft tactic, Financial i-deal). Thirdly, hard tactics are primarily deployed in negotiating flexibility-related i-deals such as schedule, location, and holidays. As mentioned earlier, hard tactics are utilized more extensively when there is expected resistance from the other party (e.g. Mart í nez-Corts et  al., 2008), and flexibility issues can be sensitive topics in SMEs that may provoke resistance. These issues are particularly sensitive in SMEs for different reasons: negotiating holiday i-deals can disrupt the firm ’ s operations, especially during peak demand periods like summer months; the Presenteeism Culture in SMEs makes negotiating location-flexibility i-deals challenging, with employers assuming lower employee productivity outside the traditional workplace setting. Therefore, besides having previous references facilitating these negotiations, employees may employ hard tactics to overcome employer resistance. Theodore (employer): “ I needed people to go to Seville and I told Joshua (employee): you have to go for a few days, you've been here the longest, that's how we've always done things here and you have to do it ” . (Hard tactic, Location-Flexibility i-deal). Dylan (employee): “ We received a 24-hour assignment from a client. I told him that if he wanted me to work that long, I would have to work from home, otherwise I would have to leave at some point. [ … ] Other colleagues had already done that, and I knew that I was the person who had the most knowledge on designs, and I knew that without me they wouldn't get the job done ” . (Hard tactic, Location-Flexibility i-deal). Overall, the results show that rational tactics are used mainly to negotiate aspects related to work development, such as task and reduced-workload i-deals; soft tactics are implemented to negotiate aspects connected to employment, such as financial and development i-deals; and hard tactics are employed for negotiations related to work flexibility. 4.4  Gender differences in i-deal negotiations It is important to highlight that, beyond our research questions, findings reveal notable gender differences in the i-deal negotiation process within family SMEs. Specifically, distinctions between men and women were observed regarding the type of i-deal negotiated. For instance, women exclusively negotiate schedule-flexibility i-deals, whereas men are the only ones who negotiate holidays i-deals. These findings align with recent studies, such as Sun et  al. (2023), which show that women tend to manage work-life balance on a day-to-day basis by negotiating schedule-flexibility i-deals, while men focus on situations requiring more planning, such as holidays: Sophia (employee): “ I'm always thinking about work, but I negotiated to start later so I can take my children to school ” . (Schedule-flexibility i-deal) William (employee): “ As a technical manager, it's challenging to ask for more, but I negotiate my holidays. My wife takes the first two weeks of August off, so I take those days to be with her and our children. Then I return to work earlier than my colleagues for the remaining two weeks of August ” . (Holidays i-deal) Women negotiation of schedule-flexibility i-deals is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it benefits women ’ s work-life balance, but on the other hand it undermines women ’ s work development opportunities. However, not always flexible i-deals are accepted. Notably, in organizations where these i-deals were denied, there were no previous female role models who had successfully negotiated such agreements: Morgan (employee): “ Honestly, when I started, the schedule wasn ’ t ideal for me. I live outside the city and would have preferred to start a bit later to take my kids to school, but they said no. I ’ m not sure if anyone has negotiated a schedule change before; I don ’ t think so ” . (Schedule-flexibility i-deal) Anna (employee): “ That's precisely why I haven ’ t negotiated it. Since you're not visible, it seems like you're not there. That ’ s one downside of remote work. Right now, James (the employer) mentioned last week that they want to open the position of Administrative Director. He told me that they wanted to give me the courtesy of informing me that they would be posting it, even though they knew that, given the schedule, I probably wouldn ’ t be interested ” . (Location-flexibility i-deal) Furthermore, our findings show important gender differences in the i-deal negotiation process, particularly regarding perceptions of power dynamics and the application of influence tactics. Male employees tend to emphasize their referent power, such as the establishment of trusted relationships with employers, as a key factor influencing employers' acceptance of i-deals. In contrast, female employees underscore their informational power, leveraging strategic insights to negotiate reduced-workload and development i-deals. These findings align with Goodwin et  al.'s (2020) study on women ’ s empowerment, emphasizing their inclination to gain control to achieve the negotiated agreement. In our research, it appears that women attain this control through a comprehensive understanding of organizational dynamics: Jacob (employee): “ I know that Oliver (employer) trusts me as if I were a member of his own family. He has told me that. We ’ ve worked together for many years, and I trust him a lot as well [ … ] I knew that knowing French would be useful for us to be able to expand abroad, so I suggested taking this course to Oliver ” . (Referent power) Madison (employee): “ At the beginning of the year a new legal regulation came out that they would need and I happen to know all about it, otherwise they would have had to hire an external service. For that reason, Daniel (employer) accepted ” . (Informational power) Moreover, regarding gender differences in the use of influence tactics, women generally rely more on rational tactics, whereas men tend to employ a mix of the three types, rational, soft and hard tactics. Specifically, women predominantly use rational tactics when negotiating flexibility i-deals to better work-life balance, such as explaining the reasoning behind their proposed changes or demonstrating how schedule adjustments will ensure performance remains on par with colleagues: Hannah (employee): “ I talked to my employer and told him that I wanted to take my children to school [ … ] I knew that coming in late would keep my colleagues from being able to do some tasks, because we usually do some things together, so I told him that if he let me come in later, I would spend more time getting ahead on that unfinished work ” . (Rational tactic, Schedule-flexibility i-deal). Secondly, both men and women typically employ soft tactics when negotiating financial and development i-deals. The key distinction lies in their approach: men rely on trust in the other party, whereas women require both trust and sufficient job experience to appeal these tactics effectively: Scarlett (employee): “ One day at the reception I asked Gabriel (employer) what I had to do to earn a little more [ … ] He laughed at first, but then we met in the office to negotiate [ … ] I already knew everything I had to know about my job, I had been there for many years, and I wanted a pay raise ” . (Soft tactic, Financial i-deal) Thirdly, although men and women use hard tactics they use them in a different way. Men tend to employ hard tactics more frequently in negotiating holiday and location-flexibility i-deals, whereas women appeal to hard tactics for negotiating schedule flexibility and sometimes, financial i-deals. In the latter case, women may leverage third-party alliances to influence the other party: Anna (employee): “ I spoke about it many times with his daughter, with whom I am close [ … ] Everyone who comes in here earns more than the clerical staff, I don't understand why. She told me that I was right and that she would tell her father. So, one day she told me that she had already spoken to James (employer) and that she thought it made sense for me to get a pay raise ” . (Hard tactic, Financial i-deal) In summary, our results reveal that there are gender differences in the i-deal negotiation process within family SMEs, both in the types of i-deals negotiated and rejected, as well as in the dynamics of power and influence that women and men employ during negotiations. 5.  Discussion This study examines the i-deals negotiation process in family SMEs, focusing on the types of i-deals negotiated and the power and influence dynamics involved. We will summarize the main findings: firstly, an organizational culture that facilitates i-deals negotiation was identified, characterized by supportive, trusting, and communicative relationships between employers, employees, and co-workers, knowledge sharing, limited promotion opportunities, and compensation through professional development; secondly, family SMEs characteristics impact the type of i-deals negotiated. Specifically, the horizontal structure, closer proximity between organizational levels, rigidity in adapting to non-face-to-face work, and the need for better coordination with coworkers influence how and why task, flexibility, and holiday i-deals are negotiated in SMEs compared to larger organizations; thirdly, expert and referent powers are relevant sources of power in family SMEs; finally, rational tactics are often used for negotiating work performance, soft tactics for employment-related aspects, and hard tactics for work flexibility negotiations. An unexpected result is the gender difference in the types of i-deals negotiated and rejected, the power, and the tactics used. 5.1  Theoretical contributions Firstly, our results reveal a culture within family SMEs that facilitates i-deal negotiations. This culture is consistent with Quinn ’ s values model (1998) and is characterized by trust and open communication between employers and employees, a prior reference from someone who has successfully negotiated i-deals, as well as support from coworkers, knowledge sharing, and alignment on common goals (see Figure  4). A supportive culture increases employer and employee commitment to the organization ’ s goals through trust, loyalty, and a sense of belonging. An innovationoriented culture boosts creativity and adaptability, emphasizing the importance and impact of i-deal negotiations. Finally, a goal-oriented culture enhances goal setting, planning, and task focus by providing clear objectives and rewarding achievements through i-deal negotiations (Hartnell et  al., 2011). Figure  4 i Images may appear blurred during proofing as they have been optimized for fast web viewing. A high quality version will be used in the final publication. Click on the image to view the original version. Secondly, task, flexibility, and holiday i-deals are negotiated differently in family SMEs compared to large organizations. In large organizations, task i-deal negotiations are complex and time-consuming, requiring coordination and approvals from multiple levels of authority and departments (Giessner and Schubert, 2007). In contrast, family SMEs benefit from closer relationships between employers and employees, eliminating the need for intermediaries and using task i-deals to address hiring challenges and boost employee motivation and career development. Secondly, while large organizations often implement flextime policies, family SMEs are generally reluctant to negotiate location flexibility i-deals due to the Presenteeism Culture (Adecco, 2021). Thirdly, large organizations have formal systems for managing holidays, with schedules and restrictions based on availability, project priorities, and employee tenure (Igusa, 2011). Conversely, family SMEs, with their smaller workforce, could negotiate holidays more personally, considering each employee ’ s work-life balance needs. As Burke (2011) highlights, coordinating with coworkers is essential in holiday negotiations to maintain organizational functionality, which is particularly relevant in family SMEs due to their small number of employees. Finally, whereas large organizations often have greater economic capacity to negotiate ideals related to salaries or training, family SMEs are constrained by their limited resources (Carlson et  al., 2006). This situation necessitates that employees have a thorough understanding of the organization ’ s current state in order to negotiate such i-deals; otherwise, these i-deals may be denied. In this way, we contribute to the i-deal literature by demonstrating how organizational context explains why ideals are accepted or even rejected. That is, while i-deals are often framed positively for both, employers and employees, our findings reveal that, in family SMEs, these mutual benefits hinge on factors such as tenure, communication, trust and an understanding of the limits imposed by both parties (e.g. financial constraints). Furthermore, while different studies (e.g. Marino et  al., 2022; Vizca í no et  al., 2023) mainly focus on successful i-deal negotiations within family SMEs, our study incorporates insights from failed negotiations. This approach enhances the conclusions drawn from the ‘ positive side ’ by emphasizing how factors like employee tenure can play a key role in identifying the most appropriate timing for negotiating specific i-deals, such as financial or developmental ones. We also found differences between large companies and family SMEs in the power dynamics of negotiating i-deals. Expert power is important in both contexts, but in large organizations, it is more segmented and diversified due to the breadth of operations and business areas, with a greater likelihood of having specialized experts (Qu and Pao, 2012). In family SMEs, expert power is important because a broader range of technical and social competencies is needed for multifunctionality, which is highly valued (Rahaman et  al., 2021). Additionally, the use of referent power differs between large organizations and SMEs. In large organizations, the hierarchical structure and greater distance between levels make referent power less relevant in i-deal negotiations (Giessner and Schubert, 2007). In contrast, family SMEs benefit from higher referent power due to closer relationships between employers and employees. This proximity fosters a greater sense of identification and understanding of each other ’ s needs, facilitating i-deal negotiations (Moro and Fink, 2013). Cultural pattern facilitating i-deals negotiations in family SMEs By analyzing the power bases, our study contributes to understanding how i-deals negotiations begin and the effects of power in i-deal negotiations. As described above, certain power bases held by subordinates can level the power dynamic in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. Furthermore, elements such as trust, identification with the other party, and sharing information about each other ’ s needs are highlighted to understand the positive effect of more equal power relations on negotiation outcomes. This paper also shows how certain influence tactics are used to negotiate different i-deals. Rational tactics are employed to negotiate i-deals related to work performance, highlighting the importance of presenting strong arguments when negotiating tasks and reduced-workload i-deals. Family SMEs, lacking the personnel resources of larger companies, require solid justification for task changes or workload reductions (Walmsley et  al., 2012). Soft tactics are used to negotiate salaries and training courses, which incur costs. In family SMEs, these negotiations typically occur ex-post, due to the need for trust and understanding of the organization, aligning financial and development i-deals with the organization ’ s needs and resources (Anand et  al., 2021Anand et  al., 2021). Hard tactics are employed in family SMEs for flexibility and holiday i-deals where resistance is anticipated (Mart í nez-Corts et  al., 2008). While hard tactics are also used in large organizations, their effectiveness differs. The lack of collective agreements and flexible HR management in family SMEs reduces expected resistance. In contrast, in larger companies, using hard tactics for flexibility or holiday i-deals may have more negative effects due to the support of collective agreements and HR practices (Qu and Pao, 2012). In this regard, findings align with previous research offering an explanation for why certain tactics may not be as effective as anticipated. For instance, according to the meta-analysis by Lee et  al. (2017), rational tactics are effective in securing the other party ’ s commitment to the negotiated i-deal and improving relationships, as the person using this tactic is perceived as trustworthy and well-informed. Moreover, these authors show that soft tactics are effective both for securing commitment to proposals and for enhancing relationships between the parties, as they emphasize aspects such as loyalty and understanding the other party ’ s goals. Finally, Lee et  al. (2017) found unexpected results regarding the use of hard tactics like legitimization and coalition. Contrary to their hypothesis, they discovered that these tactics did not negatively impact commitment to the proposal or relationships between the parties. Consistent with these findings, our study observed that hard tactics are effective in securing the negotiated i-deal when there is a relationship of trust between both parties. Thus, our study contributes to the literature on influence by explaining why hard tactics can be effective in i-deal negotiations. Finally, there are notable gender differences, women only negotiate schedule-flexibility i-deals, while men negotiate holiday i-deals. This can be explained by gender role theory (Eagly and Steffen, 1984) or the anticipation of reactions ’ model (Reif and Brodbeck, 2014). In male-dominated sectors, women could negotiate schedule-flexibility i-deals because it aligns with their role as daily caregivers (Goodwin et  al., 2020), expecting approval from employers and support from co-workers. Conversely, men could avoid negotiating schedule-flexibility i-deals as it implies prioritizing their home role. However, men anticipate positive outcomes when negotiating holiday i-deals, as these occasional adjustments do not suggest neglecting work priorities but stem from family needs. This finding has practical implications in order to eliminate gender inequalities. Moreover, our results reveal gender differences, also, in denied i-deals. Specifically, in certain circumstances, such as the lack of a prior female role model, both schedule-flexibility and location-flexibility i-deals are consistently denied to female employees. Additionally, in other cases, female employees have chosen not to initiate negotiations for these ideals due to fears of jeopardizing their status within the organization. These findings are consistent with other studies, such as Perera and Li (2022), which argue that women may be more inclined to seek access to flexibility i-deals. However, negotiating such i-deals can signal to managers that the employee is less committed to their work, the organization, or their career, negatively impacting managers ’ perceptions and leading them to view the employee as less deserving of the i-deal. This bias is exacerbated in family SMEs, where perceptions of merit for an i-deal often rely on employees' physical presence and availability (Elsbach et  al., 2010; Hornung et  al., 2008). As a result, this process erodes female employees' perception of their power to negotiate, as they face greater barriers to accessing flexibility agreements, reinforcing gender inequalities in i-deal negotiations. Our study also identified gender differences in terms of power in i-deal negotiations. Specifically, men tend to rely primarily on their expert and referent power to negotiate i-deals, leveraging their perceived expertise and interpersonal relationships. In contrast, women often emphasize additional control elements, such as access to organizational information or the involvement of third-party collaborators, to secure the acceptance of an i-deal. This need for additional resources may stem from a desire to mitigate potential backlash or negative perceptions from decision- makers, as women may perceive the negotiation landscape as more challenging (Anggadwita and Indarti, 2023; Bowles and McGinn, 2005).) These findings align with research by Goodwin et  al. (2020), which emphasizes that women often feel compelled to establish greater control over their circumstances before entering negotiations. This need for preparation and support can create an additional barrier for women, as they may spend more time gathering information and securing allies, delaying their ability to negotiate effectively. This highlights the importance of fostering equitable conditions in negotiation contexts to empower all employees to advocate for their needs effectively. Finally, regarding gender differences in the use and effectiveness of influence tactics, our study shows how women use more rational and less hard tactics than men. As highlighted in previous studies about influence tactics, women achieve more positive outcomes when using these tactics rather than hard tactics because of the gender role expectation. When women use hard tactics, its negative effects are more salient than when they are used by men (George-Levi and LasloRoth, 2022). 5.2  Practical implications This study provides different practical implications. Firstly, it underscores the importance for employers to foster a culture of support, innovation and goal orientation. Specifically, our study highlights the value of close relationships and direct communication between employees and employers in family SMEs, as these elements are key in facilitating i-deal negotiations. Given the gender differences observed, this culture should be extended to all levels of the organization, creating clear communication protocols that prevent misunderstandings and foster psychological safety that encourages individuals to express their voices and initiate discussions about i-deals without fear of negative consequences. Additionally, consistent induction training can help new employees acclimate to the organizational culture while emphasizing the importance of open communication in negotiations. By creating opportunities for informal interactions, such as social events, family SMEs can further strengthen these relationships, making it easier for employees to approach their supervisors about i-deals. Finally, regular check-ins that focus on skill development and negotiation strategies can empower employees to negotiate effectively. A second practical implication pertains to identifying the types of i-deals that are particularly challenging to negotiate in family SMEs. Understanding these challenges allows employers and employees to navigate negotiations more effectively and find mutually beneficial solutions. For instance, our findings suggest that financial i-deals and flexibility i-deals, such as schedule or location adjustments, are often met with resistance due to the unique dynamics and resource limitations inherent in family SMEs. Recognizing these hurdles opens the door to exploring alternative i-deals that may be more feasible. For example, employers could consider offering non-financial benefits, such as professional responsibilities that align with employees ’ career aspirations. This approach can satisfy employee needs while minimizing the perceived risks and costs for employers. Moreover, in family SMEs, it is also important to train employers on how to effectively deny i-deals, as not all requests can be accommodated. Given that employers cannot authorize i-deals for all employees, they must handle the situations of those whose requests have been denied in a fair and equitable manner. Thirdly, as we have demonstrated, equitable power relationships can alter the dynamics in highly interdependent situations where supervisors depend on employees to achieve organizational goals and vice versa. Although the employer-employee relationship is often viewed as one of unequal power due to their differing statuses, as suggested by Schaerer et  al. (2020), this power imbalance can be reduced and value can be created in negotiations when both parties, especially the one with less power, strategically align with each other ’ s priorities. For instance, if an employee identifies an opportunity to collaborate on a project where they have expertise that is valuable to the supervisor, they can leverage this position to negotiate more effectively. By fostering these equitable relationships, organizations can enhance the negotiation process and create mutually beneficial outcomes. Fourthly, this study suggests that tailored training programs could be developed to enhance different influence tactics for negotiating specific i-deals. Such training could equip employees and employers with essential skills to navigate the negotiation landscape more effectively. For instance, employees could be trained in the importance of formulating solid, evidence-based arguments when negotiating reduced-workload i-deals. In this regard, virtual reality could be utilized for negotiation training, when possible, a method that has recently shown promising results in the negotiation area ( Ding et  al., 2020Ding et  al., 2020). This approach could cover effective communication strategies, teaching employees and employers how to articulate their needs clearly and persuasively while aligning their requests with the organization ’ s objectives. By simulating real negotiation scenarios, employees and employers can practice their skills in a safe environment, enhancing their confidence and effectiveness in actual negotiations. Additionally, when organizations are unable to incur the costs associated with virtual training programs, alternative measures could be implemented, such as online workshops or mentoring sessions (e.g. Grappendorf et  al., 2024), to ensure employees and employers still receive valuable negotiation skills development. Lastly, the identified gender differences in i-deal negotiations present practical implications for employers. Firstly, organizations should acknowledge that women frequently face challenges in securing flexibility i-deals, which are often denied. In this sense, it is important to train employers to identify the specific needs of their employees and to proactively offer i-deals that address those needs. By doing so, organizations can not only retain talent but also demonstrate empathy toward their workforce (Perera and Li, 2022). Some similar initiatives are suggested by previous literature (Lutz et  al., 2023 or Simone et  al., 2020), for example training employers to reduce biases. Secondly, since women tend to require additional resources to enhance their negotiating power, employers should provide accessible information regarding i-deals and the negotiation process. Finally, recognizing gender differences in negotiation tactics, organizations should encourage all employees to develop a diverse range of negotiation skills by means of training programs. This could empower individuals to advocate for their needs more effectively, fostering an environment where all employees can feel confident in negotiating different types of i-deals. 5.3  Limitations and future lines of research This study has some limitations. One limitation is the generalization of these results to other sectors with a higher representation of women. Our findings are primarily based on data from male-dominated sectors, such as industrial and agricultural sectors, which are representative of the predominant industries in Spain (Subdirecci ó n General de Apoyo a las PYMEs, 2021). However, six of the organizations analyzed belong to female-dominated sectors: two in the service sector, two in tourism, one in education and one in marketing. It is worth noting that, in line with previous studies (e.g. Hashish, 2015; Hashish et  al., 2023), the results obtained from both maleand female-dominated sectors follow the same pattern regarding power dynamics and influence. However, further research is needed in sectors such as education and healthcare, where women are more prevalent, to conduct a more in-depth analysis of these processes in family SMEs. Secondly, this study makes a concerted effort to analyze the negotiation process from both employer and employee perspectives. This was achieved for all i-deal negotiations except for financial i-deals. It is important to note that this type of i-deal is particularly difficult to analyze because individuals are often reluctant to discuss financial matters due to confidentiality concerns, fear of judgment, or potential negative repercussions (De Winne et  al., 2024). Nevertheless, the findings we present regarding financial i-deals are innovative, as they outline the specific conditions under which these i-deals are negotiated (e.g. trust, tenure, referent power, and the use of soft tactics). It is also worth noting that, despite different negotiation contexts, both employees and employers consistently emphasize trust in the other party and tenure within the organization as key factors in successful negotiations. Finally, although the generalization of the results may be limited by analyzing only SMEs within the Spanish context, many characteristics of this legal and cultural context may be similar to those of other countries. For example, Spanish union density is comparable to that of France, Portugal and the Netherlands (ILO, 2019); individualism levels are similar in Switzerland, Chile and Italy (Liao et  al., 2016; Wasti et  al., 2022); and finally, in terms of power distance, Spain aligns with Canada, France and Italy (Tang et  al., 2020). In future studies, it would be interesting to analyze the pattern of cultural characteristics in the country where i-deals are negotiated, in order to identify common and specific aspects that either facilitate or hinder the negotiation of i-deals. 6.  Conclusions The results of this study provide significant insights into i-deal negotiations in family SMEs. Firstly, we identified a cultural pattern within these organizations that facilitates i-deal negotiations, characterized by support, innovation, and shared goals, which aligns with Quinn ’ s values model (1988). Second, family SMEs present a unique context for these negotiations, highlighting the need to extend Rousseau et  al.'s (2006) classification to include holiday i-deals. Thirdly, our findings emphasize the critical role of power and influence, addressing the necessity outlined by Simosi et  al. (2021) for a more comprehensive understanding of i-deal negotiations, including the dynamics involved both at the initiation and throughout the negotiation process. Furthermore, this study underscores the importance of adopting a dual perspective (employer-employee) in qualitative research, revealing both similarities and differences in i-deal negotiations and offering a holistic view of the process. Finally, our research incorporates a gender perspective on i-deal negotiations, illuminating not only the disparities between men and women but also identifying specific factors, such as increased job information or stronger trust with managers, that can help mitigate these gender disparities in initiating negotiations. Acknowledgement Funding statement: Grant PID2019-110093GB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033; This work was supported by the Ministerio de Universidades, Gobierno de Espa ñ a [FPU21/01208] Appendix Introduction for employer interviews We are conducting a study on the customization of working conditions and relationships that are negotiated between employees and employers. We are interested in learning about the agreements and negotiations that take place either before or after the employment contract is signed. Specifically, we want to explore the aspects that distinguish the working conditions of different employees. All data collected will be anonymous, meaning that your name and the name of your organizations will never be disclosed. We are conducting interviews with individuals from various companies, and a final report will be compiled with the most relevant insights from all the interviews. Icebreaker question To start, could you tell me a bit about your role? For instance, how long have you been with the organization? What are your responsibilities as a manager/supervisor, and how many people do you oversee? To give us some context, let me provide an example of what I would like us to discuss. In some organizations, everyone at the same level has the same conditions (e.g. working hours, training opportunities, pay, workplace location), while in others, there is a common contract, but employees can negotiate specific aspects for various reasons. Taking these two possibilities into account, which one is more similar to your company? Option A: everyone has the same conditions. Option B: different conditions. Negotiation of an i-deal from the bottom (employee) up (employer) I-deal Negotiation: Why aren ’ t these conditions negotiated?(1) Has anyone ever suggested negotiating them? What happened?(2) Have you ever been involved in any of these negotiations?(1) Who initiated them?(2) Have any of your employees ever negotiated specific working conditions or benefits with you?(1) Who initiated the negotiation, and what was the nature of the request?(2) What was the outcome of the negotiation?(3) How did the negotiation process unfold (e.g. when, how, and with whom did the discussions take place)? (4) Power Dynamics: Influence Dynamics: Specific Traits of Family SMEs: Negotiation from top to bottom (In the case that the negotiation begins from a ‘ top-down perspective.) As managers, you may propose something to an employee due to specific needs within the company. What types of agreements have you offered (for instance, some managers mention opportunities for specialized training, changes in responsibilities, involvement in projects, flexibility, etc.)? I-deal Negotiation: Power Dynamics: Influence Dynamics: Why did your employee initiate a negotiation with you?(1) What factors do you think influenced your employee ’ s decision to initiate negotiations with you?(2) Why did you agree to initiate the negotiation with the employee?(3) How would you describe the power dynamics between you and the employee during the negotiation?(4) Were there any challenges or obstacles during the negotiation process? How were they addressed?(5) How did the employee present their case? Did they have any particular influence or leverage during the negotiation? (1) Were there specific strategies that the employees used to enhance their chances of success?(2) How did you perceive the employee ’ s influence on the negotiation outcome?(3) Do you think the negotiation process would have been different if your company wasn ’ t family-owned? In what way? (1) Would the dynamics of negotiation change in a larger organization compared to your SME?(2) Have you ever proposed specific working conditions or benefits to your employees?(1) What was the nature of the agreements you suggested?(2) How did the negotiation process unfold (e.g. when, how, and with whom did the discussions take place)? (3) What was the outcome of these negotiations?(4) Why did you initiate a negotiation with your employee?(1) What factors did you consider when deciding to initiate a negotiation with your employee?(2) Why did an employee agree to negotiate with you?(3) How would you describe the power dynamics during these negotiations?(4) Were there any challenges or obstacles you encountered in the negotiation process? How were they addressed? (5) (1) Specific Traits of Family SMEs: Introduction for Employees Interviews We are conducting a study on the labor relations between employees and supervisors/managers. We are interested in understanding the agreements and negotiations that sometimes take place between employees and employers. This can occur either before signing the contract or after it has been signed. We want to explore the aspects that differentiate your working conditions from those of your colleagues. All data collected will be anonymous, meaning that your name will never be disclosed, nor will the specific content of this interview be shared with the company. We are interviewing individuals from various organizations, and a final report will be compiled with the most relevant insights from all the interviews. Icebreaker Question: To start, could you tell me a bit about your role? For example, how long have you been with the company? What are your working hours? What tasks do you perform? How many people do you work with? Context for Discussion: In some organizations, everyone at the same level has the same conditions (e.g. working hours, training opportunities, pay, workplace location), while in others, there is a common contract, but employees can negotiate specific aspects for various reasons. Taking these two possibilities into account, which one is more similar to your experience? Option A: Everyone has the same conditions. Option B: Different conditions. Negotiation of an i-deal from the bottom (employee) up (employer) I-deal Negotiation: Power Dynamics: How did you present your case to the employees? Did you use any particular strategies to encourage their acceptance? What factors do you believe influenced the employees' responses to your proposals?(2) Do you think the negotiation process would be different if your organization wasn ’ t family-owned? In what way? (1) Would the dynamics of negotiation change in a larger organization compared to your SME?(2) Why aren ’ t these conditions negotiated?(1) Has anyone ever suggested negotiating them? What happened? (2) Have you ever been involved in any negotiations regarding your working conditions?(1) Who initiated those negotiations?(2) Have you ever negotiated specific working conditions or benefits with your employer?(1) What was the nature of the request you made?(2) What was the outcome of the negotiation?(3) How did the negotiation process unfold (e.g. when, how, and with whom did the discussions take place)? (4) Footnotes Text Footnotes Sun, N., Liang, S., Li, H. and Song, H. (2023), “Ex post i-deals, work-life balance, and work well-being in the hospitality industry: the moderating role of gender”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 3077-3094, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2022-0350. Tang, G., Chen, Y., van Knippenberg, D. and Yu, B. (2020), “Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 551-566, doi: 10.1002/job.2449g. Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (2015), “National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 278-296, doi: 10.1108/CCM-03-2014-0028. Vizcaíno, F.V., Martin, S.L. and Jaramillo, F. (2023), “The role of i-deals negotiated by small business managers in job satisfaction and firm performance: do company ethics matter?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 158, 113697, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113697. Walmsley, A., Thomas, R. and Jameson, S. (2012), “Internships in SMEs and career intentions”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 185-204, doi: 10.1080/13639080.2011.573774. Wasti, S.A., Ersoy, N.C. and Erdogan, B. (2022), “I-deals in context: a summary and critical review of ideals literature around the globe”, in Anand, S. and Rofcanin, Y. (Eds), Idiosyncratic Deals at Work: Exploring Individual, Organizational, and Societal Perspectives, Springer Nature, Switzerland, pp. 257-307. Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T. and Grugulis, I. (2007), “Information but not consultation: exploring employee involvement in SMEs”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1279-1297, doi: 10.1080/09585190701393798. Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have conflicts of interest. Ethics approval statement: 1789-N-22 Patient consent statement: All participants signed an informed consent form that explained the purpose of the research, as well as the voluntary nature, anonymity, and freedom to withdraw from the study. Queries and Answers Q1 Query: Please confirm that given name(s) [yellow] and surname(s) [green] have been identified correctly and are presented in the desired order, and please carefully verify the spelling of all authors’ names, including all special characters and accents. Please note that no changes can be made to authorship at this point in the publication process. Answer: Confirmed Q2 Query: Please ensure the accuracy of the affiliation(s) of each author. Affiliations cannot be changed once the article has been published online. Answer: Confirmed Q3 Query: If you wish to edit the affiliation details, please consider the following house style requirements to avoid any further queries and to speed up publication: (a) city and country names, in English, are mandatory; (b) state name is required only for the USA and not to be included for any other countries; (c) address lines, such as Avenue, Boulevard, Street, should not be included; (d) postal codes are not allowed; (e) degrees, roles, and titles (e.g. Dr., Professor, student, scholar, etc.) are not allowed. Please note that any details that do not conform to the house style requirements will not be retained in the modified/newly included affiliations. Answer: No modifications needed. Q4 Query: Please be advised that affiliations are fixed at submission. If you wish to note a changed affiliation since submission but prior to acceptance, please advise of this affiliation in full (including department, city, state if based in the US, and country) as well as the date your association with this new institution began. Failure to provide this date may cause significant delay to the publication of your article. Once this change has been confirmed, this affiliation will either be added as a dual affiliation or as part of the author biography information, using the wording “The author is also affiliated with [AFFILIATION DETAILS]”. Answer: No changes required Q5 Query: Please confirm that the provided email “[email protected]” is the correct address for official communication. Answer: Correct Q6 Query: The citation ‘French and Raven (1959)’ has been changed to match the date in the reference list. Please check. Answer: the date in this citation is 1959. Please change it in the reference list. Q7 Query: For Figure(s) 2 and 3, The supplied source image has very low resolution (not enough pixels for the print size) and the visual quality is not sufficient. Please provide us with an image that has a minimum resolution of 300 dpi and with a proper print size (typically we need 900 pixels wide for an image that fits a single column). Answer: Replace Figure 2 and 3