Are Employees Really Autonomous?

Step inside any modern office space, or browse a corporate career website, and you will see a common message in different guises: flexibility, ownership, autonomy. Workers are encouraged to take control of their time and activities, to act independently, and to be themselves. The concept of autonomy, previously a privilege, has become a characteristic of modern progressive organizations. However, there lurks a rather unsettling question beneath all of this: is autonomy just a façade of control?

Self-Determination Theory forms the basis of this debate. This theory was put forth by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, and it holds that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental psychological needs that help motivate people and enhance their well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

In other words, people achieve more when they perceive themselves as being autonomous, and not under any external influence. It is clear that organisations have embraced this theory in the design of job roles, which give employees a sense of autonomy. The question, however, is whether this autonomy is genuine or just symbolic.

Modern work environments are adept at manufacturing what could be referred to as the illusion of autonomy. Take the example of flexible working hours. On the face of it, offering workers the ability to determine their own schedule is liberating. However, the boundaries within which these decisions must be made are dictated by tacit standards such as availability at all times, promptness in replying, and maintaining a high level of productivity irrespective of the surroundings.

While workers might technically have the liberty to leave the office before the end of the day, these underlying principles of availability and efficiency imply the contrary. As the organizational theorist Shoshana Zuboff writes in her treatise on surveillance capitalism, modern mechanisms of control are not necessarily coercive but behavioral (Zuboff, 2019).

The transition from control by command to control through suggestion is not an accident but a conscious move. Hierarchical organizations in the past were characterized by explicit chains of command, whereby managers would issue orders that had to be obeyed by the employees. In the present day, control is implicit in organizational culture, performance criteria, and computer technology. Workers are expected to become autonomous in their actions, yet the autonomy is in many cases used to identify with the organizational objectives as one’s own.

How this takes place can be explained by the theory of impression management, an idea that was introduced by the sociologist Erving Goffman. In the workplace, for example, workers will always have to manage their impressions, acting in a proactive manner and being committed. While they may be autonomous in decision-making, they will always have to take into account the judgment that will follow any action that they will take. Will they raise their hand in the meeting? Will they refuse the assignment? Will they clock out on time?

Technology adds yet another layer of complexity to this situation. Productivity tools like task management software, communications systems, and performance tracking interfaces serve not only as means for boosting efficiency but also as means of constant surveillance. Even when workers are not under the watchful eye of a direct supervisor, they remain in full view through their productivity rates, reaction times, and levels of involvement. This results in an interesting phenomenon known as digital presenteeism, where the act of appearing productive comes to be valued just as highly as actual productivity itself.

A further dimension of constraint exists in the notion of the psychological contract, an unstated set of expectations between employees and organisations (Rousseau et al., 2015). Differing from legal contracts, psychological contracts are implicit and frequently unclear. Employees think they have the right to make their own choices, yet they are bound by implicit obligations of commitment, hard work, and availability – seldom clearly stated. Violating such obligations results in more than professional concerns, but brings psychological issues like guilt, worry, and betrayal into play. In essence, autonomy operates under a cloud of implicit understandings that restrict freedom.

Importantly, not all employees will experience autonomy in the same way. There are many variables that influence whether people will have autonomy or not. This includes their position in an organisation, their socio-cultural identity, and other factors. Take for example employees who are low in the organisational hierarchy. Such employees will be less likely to enjoy autonomy as compared to employees who hold higher positions. Employees with a marginalized socio-cultural background will also be wary when it comes to decision-making because of the increased attention they attract.

This does not mean that autonomy at work is an absolute fiction. Some firms have been sincere in their attempts to devolve power, foster innovation, and give due consideration to employees’ autonomy. But here lies the crux of the issue: the discourse of autonomy itself is being employed naively. The way organizations tout their autonomy without recognizing the underlying conditions that define it may be counterproductive.

What would true autonomy mean? It would transcend mere superficial flexibility by addressing matters of power and accountability. In addition to being allowed to make choices, workers would also be permitted to challenge expectations without any fear of repercussions.

The culture of the organisation would evolve from valuing perpetual accessibility to recognising the need for boundaries, from valuing showy zeal to appreciating genuine contributions. Most importantly, there would be a requirement for clarity about expectations, whether formal or informal, which are key to achieving alignment between perception and reality regarding autonomy.

The point here, therefore, is not whether there is autonomy in contemporary workplaces but rather how such autonomy is constituted and lived out. Autonomy, stripped of its substance and used simply as a marketing strategy, will remain empty and merely an illusion of empowerment. But when organizations take into account the true nature of work, autonomy will be one step closer to being realized as was described by Deci and Ryan.

Until then, employees may continue to navigate a carefully curated version of freedom, one where the boundaries are invisible, but very much present.

Authors: Akshita Pandey, Undergraduate Student, FLAME University and Prof. Moitrayee Das, Faculty of Psychology, FLAME University.