Autonomy, a casualty of poor job design

It should come as no surprise to those who understand employee productivity and engagement that depriving individuals of autonomy, in carrying out their jobs, is an ill-conceived notion. While traditional management approaches (think Taylor), centred on reducing autonomy and increasing standardisation, may have some relevance in tasks involving the assembly and quantification of widgets, its value diminishes significantly beyond that scope.

In roles that involve any form of interaction with humans and necessitate independent thinking, the perceived advantages of reducing autonomy and increasing standardisation, intentionally or otherwise, lose their significance. To put it plainly, reducing autonomy can have adverse repercussions on employee productivity and, over the long term, on their overall wellbeing. In accordance with the principles of self-determination theory, autonomy stands as one of the fundamental psychological needs that drive human behaviour and contributes to overall happiness. When employees are granted autonomy, they tend to experience greater job satisfaction, engagement, motivation, and creativity, while simultaneously enduring less stress, burnout, and turnover.

Leaders and managers must give serious consideration to the ramifications of job design, task allocation, and workload management on employee autonomy and in turn wellbeing. Not only do organisations stand to gain improved performance from their employees when autonomy levels are elevated, but employees will also feel more empowered, motivated, and physically and mentally healthier.

Furthermore, it is important that job design is not carried out in isolation, without the input, advice, and guidance of HR professionals. Regrettably, there is a tendency among managers to adopt a 'I know boats' approach, leaving HR professionals to address the resulting issues or unfairly bearing the blame for sub-optimal people management outcomes.