The Incongruence between Autonomy and Preference for Autonomy

Abstract

While human resource practices requiring employee participation or freedom in work-related decision making have been commonly believed to be beneficial to work outcomes, we suggest that the effects of those practices on work outcomes can be limited by individual preferences, which influence the perceived quality of supervision. Drawing upon prior research on work structure and person-environment (P-E) fit perspective, we examine the joint effects of autonomy and preference for autonomy on employee work outcomes (satisfaction with supervision, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors) that are mediated via perceived supervision (individualized consideration) among the U.S. state government employees. Polynomial regression results showed that congruence between autonomy and preference for autonomy was associated with the highest level of individualized consideration. Further, from the results of a moderated mediation analysis, we found 1) an interaction between autonomy, and preference for autonomy in predicting work outcomes and 2) individualized consideration to mediate some of this interactive effect. These findings highlight the important role played by perceptions of the supervisor’s considerate behavior in promoting employees’ positive attitudes at work. The present study advances our understanding regarding how the interactions between organizations and individuals enhance work outcomes by demonstrating the moderating role of preference for autonomy in the relationship between autonomy and employee outcomes. Additionally, this research shows that congruence between autonomy and personal preferences for autonomy predicting the perceived quality of supervision, in particular the level of individualized consideration experienced by the employee. This contributes to the literature on both P-E fit and leadership and provides insights to public sector practitioners that can be helpful in dealing with challenges that may occur as a result of incongruence between the individuals’ preferences for structure and level of organizational structure they are offered.