本研究旨在探討個人化協議(idiosyncratic deals, i-deals)談判過程對員工態度與行為的影響，尤其是對離職意圖的影響，並希望提供實務建議，幫助公司與員工達成雙贏的個人化協議。
研究採用問卷調查法，數據收集分為三個階段，最終收集187份有效問卷。數據分析使用SPSS和Mplus，包括驗證性因素分析(CFA)、皮爾森相關分析(Pearson Correlation)、簡單線性回歸、中介、調節以及調節中介模型檢驗。

研究發現，個人化協議(工作任務、工作地點彈性和財務獎勵)顯著正向影響團隊中自尊，而團隊中自尊顯著負向影響離職意向。團隊中自尊在個人化協議與離職意向之間起中介作用，尤其是在工作任務和工作地點彈性方面。談判過程中的正面情緒正向調節了團隊中自尊對離職意向的負向影響，並強化了個人化協議對員工行為的影響。尤其在涉及財務獎勵的個人化協議中，如果缺乏談判過程中的正面情緒調節，財務獎勵對降低離職意向的效果將可能完全無效。

本研究回應了Conway和Coyle-Shapiro提出的“過程還是結果重要”的問題，顯示個人化協議的實質利益主要影響員工的積極態度，而行為改變(如離職意圖)更容易受到談判過程的影響。談判過程中的情緒管理對確保這些積極態度轉化為積極行為至關重要。

本研究構建了一個包含談判過程正面情緒的調節中介模型，揭示了談判過程中的情緒如何調節個人化協議引起的積極態度對員工行為(如離職意圖)的影響。這一模型拓展了現有的個人化協議理論，提供了新的視角來理解談判過程中的情緒作用。

最後，從人力資源管理的角度，本研究強調了在制定和管理個人化協議過程中的重要性，特別是談判過程中的情緒管理。研究揭示了個人化協議的隱藏力量，即個人化協議如何通過改善員工的態度進而影響其行為，尤其是在談判過程順利且情緒管理得當的情況下。個人化協議對吸引和留住高素質員工至關重要。人力資源部門和高階主管應支持並指導主管在談判個人化協議時，注重情緒管理，以增強員工的團隊自尊和工作滿意度，從而降低離職意向。

This study aims to explore the impact of the negotiation process of idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) on employee attitudes and behaviors, particularly their turnover intention, and hopes to provide practical recommendations to help companies and employees reach mutually beneficial agreements. The study employed a survey method, with data collected in three stages, resulting in 187 valid questionnaires. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS and Mplus, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Pearson correlation analysis, simple linear regression, mediation, moderation, and moderated mediation model testing.

The findings indicate that i-deals, including work tasks, flexible work locations, and financial rewards, have a significant positive impact on team-based self-esteem, which in turn significantly reduces turnover intentions. Team-based self-esteem acts as a mediator in the relationship between i-deals and turnover intentions, particularly concerning work tasks and flexible work locations. Positive emotions during the negotiation process further enhance the negative impact of team-based self-esteem on turnover intentions and amplify the overall effect of i-deals on employee behavior. However, in the case of i-deals involving financial rewards, if positive emotions are lacking during the negotiation process, the effectiveness of financial rewards in reducing turnover intentions may be entirely nullified.

This study addresses the question posed by Conway and Coyle-Shapiro regarding whether "process or outcome is more important," showing that the tangible benefits of i-deals mainly influence employees' positive attitudes, while changes in behavior (such as turnover intentions) are more likely affected by the negotiation process. Effective emotion management during the negotiation process is crucial for ensuring that these positive attitudes translate into positive behaviors.
The study constructs a moderated mediation model involving positive emotions during the negotiation process, revealing how emotions during negotiations modulate the impact of i-deals on employee behavior (such as turnover intentions). This model extends the existing theory on i-deals and provides new insights into the role of emotions in the negotiation process.

Finally, from a human resource management perspective, this study emphasizes the importance of the negotiation process in formulating and managing i-deals, particularly the management of emotions during negotiations. The research reveals the hidden power of i-deals, showing how they can improve employee attitudes and, consequently, influence their behavior, especially when the negotiation process is smooth, and emotions are well managed. I-deals are crucial for attracting and retaining high-quality employees. HR departments and senior management should support and guide managers in managing emotions during i-deal negotiations to enhance team-based self-esteem and job satisfaction, thereby reducing turnover intentions.

Bentler PM, Bonett DG. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin 88:588.

Conway N, Coyle-Shapiro J. 2018. Not so i-deal: A critical review of idiosyncratic deals theory and research. Current issues in work and organizational psychology:165-188.

Hayes AF. 2013. Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach 1:12-20.

Hornung S, Rousseau DM, Glaser J. 2009. Why supervisors make idiosyncratic deals: antecedents and outcomes of i‐deals from a managerial perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24:738-764.

Hu Lt, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 6:1-55.

Hui C, Wong A, Tjosvold D. 2007. Turnover intention and performance in China: The role of positive affectivity, Chinese values, perceived organizational support and constructive controversy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80:735-751.

Mobley WH. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology 62:237.

Pierce JL, Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management journal 32:622-648.

Rofcanin Y, Kiefer T, Strauss K. 2017. What seals the I‐deal? Exploring the role of employees' behaviours and managers' emotions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 90:203-224.

Rosen CC, Slater DJ, Chang C-H, Johnson RE. 2013a. Let’s make a deal: Development and validation of the ex post i-deals scale. Journal of Management 39:709-742.

Rosen LD, Whaling K, Carrier LM, Cheever NA, Rokkum J. 2013b. The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in human behavior 29:2501-2511.

Rousseau DM, Ho VT, Greenberg J. 2006. I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of management review 31:977-994.

Tett RP, Meyer JP. 1993. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel psychology 46:259-293.

Tucker LR, Lewis C. 1973. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38:1-10.

Van Katwyk PT, Fox S, Spector PE, Kelloway EK. 2000. Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of occupational health psychology 5:219.