Empowerment or Exploitation? The Work Autonomy Perceptual Paradox: Survey Experimental Evidence

• In Event: 41021 - Student Forum Refereed Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (90 minute): Roundtable 7: Work and Labor

Abstract

This study investigates the complex relationship between work autonomy and worker perceptions through a survey experiment involving 1,018 participants. As remote work and democratization of workplaces gain traction, understanding the dual nature of work autonomy—its potential for empowerment versus exploitation—becomes crucial. While existing literature often highlights the benefits of work autonomy, this research reveals a perceptual paradox: a general preference for scheduling autonomy, which provides time and locational flexibility, and a discernible reluctance toward substantive autonomy, which emphasizes control over work content but is often perceived as leading to increased workloads and informality. The study employs vignette job postings to measure participant interest in job roles that signal either type of autonomy. Results indicate that signaling scheduling autonomy increases job interest significantly, while substantive autonomy has a negligible effect. This divergence in preferences is attributed to perceived workload dynamics: scheduling autonomy is associated with reduced workload perceptions and enhanced capability, in contrast to substantive autonomy, which connotes heavier responsibilities. The findings suggest that organizations need to attentively navigate the complexities of work autonomy, ensuring clear communication about the implications of these job characteristics to avoid misinterpretations and potential disillusionment among candidates. The implications of this research advocates for informed job design that genuinely empowers employees rather than merely leveraging work autonomy as a marketing tool. Overall, the study underscores the necessity of clarity in articulating different types of work autonomy to align organizational values with worker expectations and realities.

Author

• Jiaqi Li, Columbia University