Abstract
Purpose: Autonomy in organisations cannot exist without rules nor relationships. Yet, previous research tends to elicit understandings of autonomy as freedom from external constraints to enact free individual will. And there are numerous positive effects related to autonomy at work. But research has not kept pace with modern-day organisations that are highly flexible and dynamic. Current understandings of autonomy are static. Autonomy is mainly regarded as something individuals possess, more or less constricted by rules. Our purpose is to contribute a more flexible and practice-oriented concept of autonomy to answer the research question: How is autonomy developed and practiced in relation to formal rules in high-risk organisations?Design: To investigate autonomy as a dynamic and flexible concept, we draw on two case studies comprised of a total of 52 interviews and more than 10 h of observation. The cases include a factory and a hospital unit.Findings: We suggest, based on the data, that autonomy is a relational phenomenon. We suggest four different autonomy-rule dynamics: Passive, loyal, self-promoting, and co-generative learning.Research Implications: Regarding autonomy as relational rather than individual contributes to our understanding of organisations as always in the making. In this, we emphasise the interactive element of autonomy.Practical Implications: Practitioners and managers may use our suggestions to work with autonomy in a different way, spurring creativity and improvisation by constructively using rules.Originality: Little research has paid attention to the concept of autonomy (despite its importance), and arguably, a trend in the available research concerns a commodification of the phenomenon, primarily aligning autonomy with (degrees of) negative freedom and individual decision making. We unpack the concept with attention to interaction – what we have called dancing with rules.
Highlights
IN SEARCH OF AUTONOMYFor more than half a century research has extensively documented the benefits of job autonomy for employee well-being, motivation, and productivity (French et al, 1960; Giacolone and Greenberg, 1997)
We suggest four different autonomy-rule dynamics: Passive, loyal, self-promoting, and co-generative learning
Contrary to a perspective on autonomy as merely an individual attribute, either pertaining to positive or negative freedom, ideas are advanced that job autonomy and rules form an internal and intricate relationship, and that autonomy in work practice is about interweaving individual freedom with organisational rules and social structures
Summary
IN SEARCH OF AUTONOMYFor more than half a century research has extensively documented the benefits of job autonomy for employee well-being, motivation, and productivity (French et al, 1960; Giacolone and Greenberg, 1997). Whereas some link job autonomy to positive freedom (Taylor, 1985) underscoring the individual freedom to be innovative and make choices (Hackman and Oldman, 1976), others emphasise negative freedom (Taylor, 1985) as represented in different notions of being free from external imposition. Examples of the latter include concepts like independence, sovereignty, and self-governance (Wiedner and Mantere, 2019). The manuscript argues, comes about by way of negative relations to the social and organisational sphere, and as the rule becomes the instrument for both individual and organisational development, job autonomy is more about dialectic growth than individual attribution
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call