10.5465/AMBPP.2019.

145

HOW DOES JOB AUTONOMY INFLUENCE JOB PERFORMANCE?

A META-ANALYTIC TEST OF THEORETICAL MECHANISMS

SIMEON MUECKE
Dept. of Business Administration and Economics
Technische Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe
Campusallee 12, 32657 Lemgo, Germany

ANJA ISEKE
Technische Hochschule Ostwestfalen-Lippe

ABSTRACT

We meta-analytically examined an integrative framework that links job autonomy to job

performance. Results from a summary of 319 studies and 151,134 participants indicate that,
overall, job autonomy led to better job performance, mainly by enhancing work motivation but
also by reducing mental strain. We differentiated three dimensions of job autonomy (decision-
making, method, and scheduling autonomy) and showed that theoretical mechanisms vary
depending on the type of autonomy. Work motivation was most strongly enhanced by decision-
making autonomy, but it was diminished by scheduling autonomy. The strain-reducing effects
were stronger for decision-making autonomy and method autonomy than for scheduling
autonomy. Moreover, preliminary evidence indicates that core self-evaluations mediated the
effects of job autonomy dimensions on work motivation and mental strain. Together, our
findings suggest the need to (a) consider multiple theoretical mechanisms and (b) differentiate
among all three forms of job autonomy in order to better understand how job autonomy affects
job performance. We offer practical implications for managers who seek to provide more job
autonomy to their employees.

INTRODUCTION

Interest in job autonomy has increased considerably due to current changes in the nature
and organization of work (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Spreitzer et al., 2017; Wegman et al.,
2018). To leverage digital technologies and employees’ expertise, companies are advised to grant
employees a greater span of control (e.g., Aminov et al., 2018; Hemerling et al., 2018; Thomas et
al., 2014). Yet many managers stick to regulating and closely monitoring employees’ work
(Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003), partly because they remain skeptical of the potential job
autonomy has to enhance job performance (Kubicek et al., 2017).
Job autonomy has long been considered a core factor in job design research (Hackman &
Lawler, 1971), leading to a rich and diverse body of literature. In general, empirical research
provides evidence for a positive yet modest link between job autonomy and job performance
(e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007; Spector, 1986). However, this relationship remains ambiguous
(Andrei & Parker, 2017). Some researchers find both positive and negative effects (e.g., Baer et
al., 2015; Chan & Lam, 2011; Cheong et al., 2016). These inconsistent results and managers’
persistent skepticism suggest a need to better understand how job autonomy relates to job
performance.
10.5465/AMBPP.2019.145

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

Job autonomy has been considered a core factor in work design theories on motivation
(most notably, Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980), as well as in work design theories on well-
being (in particular, Karasek, 1979). Both assert that job autonomy enhances job performance,
but they refer to different mechanisms, namely through work motivation (e.g., Hackman &
Oldham, 1976) and via mental strain (e.g., Bakker et al., 2004; Karasek, 1979). To advance our
understanding of how and why job autonomy affects job performance, researchers have argued
for the need to compare and contrast different theoretical mechanisms linking job autonomy and
job performance by including various mediators in one study (e.g., Langfred & Moye, 2004;
Oldham & Fried, 2016; Parker, 2014; Parker et al., 2017). We follow this call by considering
both work motivation and mental strain as potential mediators, and we explore which mechanism
is most effective (Oldham & Fried, 2016).
Job design theories imply that job autonomy leads to better job performance because it
improves work motivation (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Most notably, the job characteristics
model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; 1980) suggests that job autonomy allows employees to
experience meaningfulness and responsibility because it provides a sense of agency and
psychological ownership (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Shantz et al., 2013). These psychological
states are proposed to enhance work motivation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Similarly, self-
determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) implies that jobs that offer discretion and control help
fulfill employees’ need for autonomy and thereby increase work motivation. Employees may
also consider job autonomy a signal of trust and appreciation and feel obliged to reciprocate
through enhanced work motivation (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Highly
motivated employees are more attentive and exert higher levels of effort in their work (Chen &
Klimoski, 2003; Fredrickson, 2001; Shantz et al., 2013). As a consequence, work motivation
translates into higher levels of job performance (e.g., Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990; Rich et
al., 2010).

Hypothesis 1: The positive impact of job autonomy on job performance is mediated by

work motivation, such that job autonomy is positively related to work motivation, which
in turn is positively related to job performance.

Research on work stress suggests that job autonomy influences job performance due to its
effect on mental strain. Theories of job control and job resources (Demerouti et al., 2001;
Karasek, 1979) imply that job autonomy may stimulate personal development, facilitate the use
of effective coping skills, and improve employees’ capacity to gain other resources at work
(Demerouti et al., 2001; Park et al., 2014). Thus, job autonomy is expected to lower frustration,
anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and overall mental strain (Liu, Spector, & Jex, 2005). Prior meta-
analyses provide evidence for a strain-reducing effect of job autonomy (e.g., Alarcon 2011;
Humphrey et al., 2007; Park et al., 2014). One of the most salient outcomes of mental strain is a
decrease in job performance. Mental strain implies a depletion of cognitive and emotional
resources, which in turn reduces employees’ ability to effectively perform their jobs
(Cropanzano et al., 2003; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007; LePine et al., 2005).
10.5465/AMBPP.2019.145

Hypothesis 2: The positive impact of job autonomy on job performance is mediated by

mental strain, such that job autonomy is negatively related to mental strain, which in turn
is negatively related to job performance.

Recent research suggests that job autonomy includes interrelated yet separate dimensions
of discretion and control (Humphrey et al., 2007; Kubicek et al., 2017; Spiegelaere et al., 2016;
Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018; Wegman et al., 2018). Following Morgeson and Humphrey (2006),
we differentiate between discretion to make decisions and use personal initiative (decision-
making autonomy), the control over procedures and methods used to perform tasks (method
autonomy), and the control over scheduling or sequencing tasks (scheduling autonomy). We
argue that these dimensions differ not only conceptually but also in terms of how they affect job
performance. Overall, we expect the three forms of job autonomy to demonstrate different
relationships with work motivation. Decision-making autonomy implies the highest level of job
enrichment and responsibility (Evans & Fischer, 1992; Warr, 2011), provides the strongest sense
of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and embodies the highest level of trust and
appreciation of an employees’ competence. Therefore, we suggest that among the three forms of
job autonomy, decision-making autonomy elicits the strongest positive effect on work
motivation.

Hypothesis 3: Decision-making autonomy has a stronger positive effect on work

motivation than method autonomy and scheduling autonomy.

Research on work stress suggests that job autonomy tends to reduce mental strain but
may also have opposing effects (Cheong et al., 2016; Kubicek et al., 2017; Langfred & Moye,
2004). We assume that decision-making and method autonomy differ from scheduling autonomy
in terms of how their strain-enhancing effects offset strain-reducing effects. Decision-making
and method autonomy may increase mental strain because they are associated with increased
responsibility and the pressure to choose the right goals or methods (Baer et al., 2015; Schwartz
et al., 2002; Warr, 2013). However, decision-making and method autonomy are likely to provide
employees with a strong sense of control and mastery because they are able to choose how to do
to their job or which tasks to do.
Scheduling autonomy is frequently considered a resource that enables employees to
respond to different job demands by flexibly changing the sequencing of their tasks (Spiegelaere
et al., 2016). Furthermore, scheduling autonomy is supposed to help employees reduce work-
nonwork conflicts (Rau & Hyland, 2002). Yet, scheduling autonomy may also imply that a job is
less structured and may entail additional demands in terms of a higher amount of time worked,
permeable work-nonwork boundaries, and more frequent work-family multitasking (e.g.,
Gerdenitsch et al., 2015; Rodin, 1990; Schieman & Young, 2010; Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018).
These demands may offset the strain-reducing effects of scheduling autonomy, particularly if
scheduling autonomy is enhanced while method and decision-making autonomy remain
unchanged. In this case, employees do not experience enhanced feelings of control and mastery
but rather reduced after-work relaxation (Bennett et al., 2018). Therefore, we propose:

Hypothesis 4: Decision-making and method autonomy have a stronger negative effect on

mental strain than scheduling autonomy.
10.5465/AMBPP.2019.145

To assess the robustness of the relationships between job autonomy and job performance,
we test whether the effects of the three job autonomy dimensions hold above and beyond the
impact of core self-evaluations. We account for core self-evaluations because research on
employee traits provides evidence that positive effects on work motivation and negative effects
on mental strain are also rooted in employees’ beliefs about their capacities (Judge et al., 2005).
Employees with a positive self-concept are expected to outperform others because they tend to
have stronger needs for achievement, set more difficult goals, and have stronger beliefs in the
effort-outcome relationship (Spector, 1982), resulting in stronger work motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Vroom, 1995; Yukl & Latham, 1978). Furthermore, core self-evaluations help employees
proactively cope with stressors and mitigate strains (Greaves et al., 2017; Halbesleben et al.,
2014; Judge et al., 2005). We propose that the effects of decision-making, method, and
scheduling autonomy on work motivation and mental strain hold after controlling for core self-
evaluations.

METHOD

To identify all relevant studies on autonomy in the work context, we conducted a

computerized search of the PsycINFO and Web of Science databases, as well as a manual search
of reference lists of recent meta-analyses on work characteristics. The searches identified more
than 6,000 published articles. To be included, studies needed to meet the following criteria: be
quantitative in nature, use employees as participants, investigate at the individual level
relationships between job autonomy and at least one of the core constructs (job autonomy, work
motivation, mental strain, or job performance), use measures that align with the definitions of
our core constructs, and report sufficient results to calculate an effect size. When essential
statistical information was missing, we requested it from the authors. If a data set was used more
than once, we combined relevant information across studies and treated them as a single study.
After applying the above criteria, 319 studies were included in our meta-analysis.
Because most of the coding was unambiguous, it was mainly done by the first author
based on the agreed-upon working definitions. Consistent with the meta-analysis of Humphrey et
al. (2007), we categorized job autonomy into the three dimensions: decision-making autonomy,
method autonomy, and scheduling autonomy. In addition, an overall autonomy variable was
created. Work motivation was reflected by internal work motivation, intrinsic work motivation,
and work engagement. Mental strain included exhaustion, stress, and anxiety. For job
performance, we considered only task performance (e.g., in-role performance, productivity,
effectiveness, quality, or service). Core self-evaluations consisted of self-esteem, self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability. The coding procedure resulted in 643 unique
correlations across 348 independent samples that included a total of 151,134 individuals.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

To test the mediation model through meta-analytic structural equation modeling (SEM)
(Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), we followed the Schmidt-Hunter psychometric meta-analysis
approach (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015) to obtain estimates of the population correlations. In a
second step, we used the meta-analytic correlation matrix in SEM to test our predictions.
The results showed that, overall, job autonomy led to better job performance mainly by
enhancing work motivation but also by reducing mental strain. All proposed relationships were
10.5465/AMBPP.2019.145

significant, thus supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. Decision-making and method autonomy had
significant positive partial effects on work motivation, whereas scheduling autonomy had a
significant negative partial effect on work motivation. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the positive
effect of decision-making autonomy on work motivation was significantly stronger than that of
method and scheduling autonomy. Furthermore, all three job autonomy dimensions had
significant negative partial effects on mental strain. In support of Hypothesis 4, the influences of
decision-making autonomy and method autonomy on mental strain were significantly stronger
than that of scheduling autonomy.
The results of the covariate analysis suggested that it may be more appropriate to
consider core self-evaluations a mediator of the effects of job autonomy dimensions on work
motivation and mental strain rather than a covariate. Therefore, we conducted a post hoc analysis
and implemented core self-evaluations as a mediator between the job autonomy dimensions, and
work motivation and mental strain. Additionally, we added a direct path of scheduling autonomy
on mental strain, a direct path of decision-making autonomy on work motivation, and a direct
path of core self-evaluations on job performance. The results suggested that core self-evaluation,
mental strain, and work motivation mediated the relationships between all three autonomy
dimensions and job performance; however, theoretical mechanisms vary depending on the type
of autonomy. Both decision-making and method autonomy had a positive effect on work
motivation and a negative effect on mental strain through their positive relationship with core
self-evaluations. Scheduling autonomy had a negative effect on work motivation and a strain-
enhancing effect through its negative relationship with core self-evaluations. In addition,
decision-making autonomy was directly positively related to work motivation, and scheduling
autonomy was directly negatively related to mental strain. In sum, the total partial effects of
decision-making autonomy and method autonomy were significantly positive, whereas the total
partial effect of scheduling autonomy on job performance was significantly negative.

DISCUSSION

Our findings have several theoretical and practical implications that contribute to work
design research, as follows.
First, we synthesized a large but fragmented body of research by integrating multiple
theoretical perspectives on job autonomy. This study demonstrates that job autonomy positively
affects job performance by enhancing work motivation and by reducing mental strain. Given that
work motivation and mental strain each have unique relationships with job autonomy, future
research should consider both as mediators to gain a better understanding of how job autonomy
relates to job performance.
Second, our findings indicate that core self-evaluations serve as an additional mediator in
the job autonomy–job performance relationship. We provide meta-analytical evidence for the
notion that job autonomy, in general, tends to promote employees’ learning, self-development,
and task mastery, leading to more positive core self-evaluations (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Parker &
Ohly, 2008; Yanthopoulu et al., 2007). These findings may also inform job design models to
include core self-evaluations as additional psychological states linking job autonomy and
employee outcomes, beyond experienced meaningfulness and experienced responsibility
(Humphrey et al., 2007).
Third, we found support for the need to differentiate among the three job autonomy
dimensions in obtaining a fuller picture of the processes by which the impact is positive and
10.5465/AMBPP.2019.145

ways in which the impact is negative. This finding is important both theoretically and
methodologically. Theoretically, this finding challenges the common assumption that all
dimensions of job autonomy function in the same way. Our findings suggest that different job
autonomy dimensions have unique relationships with work motivation, mental strain, and job
performance. For example, method autonomy enhances work motivation and reduces mental
strain primarily through improved core self-evaluations, whereas decision-making autonomy also
directly enhances work motivation, beyond its positive impact on core self-evaluations. In
contrast, scheduling autonomy has countervailing effects on job performance, leading to an
overall negative relationship between scheduling autonomy and job performance. Given that all
three job autonomy dimensions have unique effects on job performance, failure to consider any
one dimension may skew the overall impact of job autonomy on job performance or at least lead
to inaccurate results. Therefore, we encourage researchers to include all three job autonomy
dimensions in their measures of job autonomy (following, e.g., Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006)
to further explore the differential impact of decision-making, method, and scheduling autonomy
on employee outcomes.
Finally, our findings may encourage managers to overcome their skepticism and give
more job autonomy to employees in order to improve work motivation, well-being, and,
ultimately, job performance. However, our findings suggest that managers must be aware that
not all autonomy is the same (Spiegelaere et al., 2016). Our results indicate that increasing
scheduling autonomy alone may have detrimental effects on work motivation. Thus, managers
are advised to combine scheduling autonomy with decision-making and method autonomy in
order to impede these negative consequences. Furthermore, our results indicate that decision-
making and method autonomy not only enhance work motivation but also tend to reduce mental
strain due to their positive impacts on core self-evaluations. This result rebuts common doubts by
managers that personal initiative or judgement in carrying out the work tends to overstrain
employees. This finding also has important implications for the design of work in the course of
technological change. If digital technology is implemented in such a way that it reduces
decision-making and method autonomy, it might deteriorate core self-evaluations, work
motivation, and employee well-being, thereby hampering job performance (Cascio &
Montealegre, 2016; Nixon & Spector, 2014; Parker et al., 2017; Wegman et al., 2018).
Despite the benefits of the meta-analytic approach over primary studies, several
limitations should be noted in the current study. The meta-analytic investigation of potential
moderators is limited to study-level variables, which excludes the examination of the moderating
role of individual differences (e.g., need for autonomy, need for achievement, and perceived
utility of autonomy). However, we plan to investigate in a second step of our meta-analytic
review the contextual conditions under which the effects of job autonomy on job performance
may be stronger or weaker. Moreover, our finding of the mediating role of core self-evaluations
is preliminary; there were only two studies (n = 721) that examined the relationship between
scheduling autonomy and core self-evaluations. To address this specific issue in our meta-
analysis, we plan to redefine our inclusion criteria and to consider henceforth core self-
evaluations as one of the core variables. In general, future research should differentiate among
various job autonomy dimensions.

REFERENCES AVAILABLE FROM THE AUTHORS