The challenge of tied autonomy for traditional work stress models

Traditional work stress models have defined work autonomy as a central factor in promoting well-being and health (e.g. Frese, 1989; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Karasek, 1979). Many of these models are based on work life in the 1960s and 1970s, the era of a strong industrial sector and the growth of rather unchallenging and pre-structured office jobs. The intention of researchers and organisational developers was to reduce the monotony of work, make it more mentally rewarding, and develop “psychosocial resources” for often unpleasant working conditions. Since then, these ideas have spread widely in occupational health psychology.

The job strain model (Karasek, 1979) in particular has been the centre of lively scientific debate in recent years in the psychosocial epidemiology and occupational health disciplines. Comprehensive meta-analyses of the IPD-Work Consortium, mainly based on various Western European large-scale cohort studies, have shown that possibilities to control one’s work, in which job autonomy forms a primary component, were rather weakly related to different health problems (e.g. CHD, depression) (e.g. Kivimäki, Nyberg, & Batty, 2012; Madsen et al., 2017). Researchers who are sympathetic to Karasek’s model have pointed out that these meta-analyses have many methodological problems. From the historical and cultural perspective, the most interesting comment deals with the argument that job strain and lack of decision latitude could possibly be a more significant problem in the working conditions of developing countries (e.g. China) than in those of developed western countries (see Netterström, 2012). Further, the weak health effects found using Karasek’s model might be related to the highly developed working conditions of Scandinavia, France, Britain and other western countries characterised by autonomous work and other established resources of work-related well-being (e.g. Choi et al., 2015). Although it is highly likely that the development phase of work life plays a significant role in the formation of occupational health hazards, this critique has been rather unspecific and underdeveloped from the viewpoint of radical changes in the working conditions of Western countries. Has autonomy really lost its significance? What is the actual role of work autonomy in the typical jobs of the 2010s? From a research perspective: How can we conceptualise and clarify these issues in work cultures of high-tech societies?

Autonomy in postindustrial societies

We suggest that the results and debates discussed above are at least partly related to the changed nature of work in postindustrial societies. Today, between 15% and 30% of the active workforce are employed in knowledge-intensive jobs in western countries. For the most part, knowledge work is performed by highly educated professionals working in white-collar occupations. Knowledge workers are accustomed to arranging their own work and schedules themselves (e.g. Hellgren, Sverke, & Näswall, 2008), thus, in the traditional sense, these workers are highly autonomous. However, their work is usually intertwined with work done by others, clients’ needs and a changing work environment. Changes in the organisation of work, activities in various networks and the complicated dependencies of work tasks and employees have restructured work in a new way and challenged the autonomy of knowledge workers (cf. Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013). Especially multiple interdependences modify the role of work autonomy regarding the work scheduling (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, & Van Hootegem, 2016). For instance, the planning of major renovation work in an old apartment building requires specialised expertise of various knowledge workers whose work is based on mutual interdependencies. Usually, this type of work and working time are split into various directions as these professionals work simultaneously in several ongoing projects. When summarising observations of various scientific disciplines, it becomes highly probable that the models for the associations between work and well-being that are currently in use will not adequately reflect the contrasting aspects of knowledge work today. As such, they are unsuitable as a starting point for studying and redesigning today’s knowledge work.

The situation seems paradoxical: there is more autonomy at work than ever, but at the same time, in many jobs of late modern societies, in practice this autonomy has become an illusion. In particular, time-related interdependences and structural demands cause interruptions, time pressure and stress. We argue that one significant dimension of current knowledge work is related to the organisation of time and the increased temporal relatedness of employees. One promising perspective for the analysis of knowledge work and the nature of autonomy in knowledge work is offered by theoretical elaborations of organisational researchers, which focus on the social and organisational role of time. Specifically, we propose that the challenging role of autonomy in knowledge-intensive work could be more profoundly understood through the framework of collective structures of time (Lewis & Weigert, 1981). This perspective suggests that autonomy is structured by different microlevel occurrences and networks, but is at the same time framed by broader organisational and societal demands and expectations. For instance, professionals of multi-area companies often work in several projects simultaneously. They have several partners and customers. Their work time consists of various overlapping sequences, time windows, cognitive tasks and meetings. These experts are highly autonomous in principle, but are also more dependent than ever upon other workers, who also have high amounts of autonomy. Knowledge workers experience time according to their own personal timetables, but at the same time, these structures are shared (cf. Orlikowski & Yates, 2002, p. 686). This situation can be labelled as tied autonomy, which is characterised by a high level of individual freedom to make decisions and plan one’s work, but also by a high level of connectivity and interdependency, because the work process itself is embedded in multiple social and organisational relationships.

Future perspectives

Most of the dominant work stress models have called for “humanisation” through creating autonomy, but in the work of knowledge professionals of the 2010s, there is normally sufficient “decision latitude” at the level of the individual’s tasks. In reality, the dilemma of tied autonomy characterises these jobs and gives the work its typical flavour. From the perspective of current professional jobs that break traditional office environments and timeframes, it certainly seems that new conceptual approaches are needed in occupational health psychology. They are needed because the core basis of occupational structure and the nature of work in postindustrial countries have changed, and will continue to rapidly do so in subsequent years. The double-edged role of work autonomy is one of the outcomes of this transition. Autonomy is wide-ranging, but restricting and time-related, and interpersonal structures limit the actual possibilities to perform one’s work autonomously.

It is highly probable that these paradoxical situations will be more prevalent in the 2020s’ labour market, where more and more employees will work as independent agents, directing their actions in the dense structure of interpersonal linkages and time structures. In this new environment and culture, occupational health researchers should also rethink their models and core theoretical assumptions. This raises questions such as: Does it make sense to conceptualise work autonomy simply as a positive resource of well-being, or is there a need to develop new theoretical models and operationalisations which take the multidimensionality of autonomy into account? These observations create at least five challenges for future research in occupational health psychology.

1. The paradoxical nature of autonomy. The complexity of autonomy means that psychosocial factors at work may have different meanings, which depend on the cultural and historical context. Today’s knowledge worker may easily state that he/she has a high level of interdependence and can decide on how work is performed, but a closer look reveals that several relationships and temporal interdependences limit this autonomy. It is possible to be both autonomous and tied at the same time, and these dimensions may even increase simultaneously. Studies of occupational well-being ought to more profoundly address these ambivalent features of knowledge-intensive work. One methodological opportunity is to develop a scale for tied autonomy which would enable the investigation of this construct by measuring the co-occurrence of independency and interdependency in, for instance, scheduling at work.

2. Impacts of tied autonomy on well-being. It is obvious that several indicators of occupational ill health (e.g. sickness absence and physical complaints) are higher among occupations with high physical demands, poor control and low salary than among other occupations. Conversely, knowledge work will be associated with a relatively high level of self-determination, work motivation and work engagement (e.g. Huang, 2011; Lehto & Sutela, 2009). However, knowledge professionals may have a distinctive composition of work-related well-being compared to other occupational groups, which may be connected to the limitless nature of their work. Work–family conflicts and sleep problems are common side-effects in the upper level of the occupational ladder, where work is often open-ended and self-directed (Rugulies, Martin, Garde, Persson, & Albertsen, 2012; Väänänen et al., 2008). Occupational health studies should focus more on how “tied autonomy” and other typical occupational characteristics of late modern work are related to common social pathologies of today’s working life (e.g. chronic overactivation, concentration problems and poor recovery).

3. Determined use of interdisciplinary perspectives. Organisational and occupational health psychology also rarely uses the theoretical discussions that take place in other areas of work life research. For instance, the ambiguous role of job autonomy has previously been addressed in critical psychology (e.g. Schwartz, 2005), and the discussion on the “weariness” of autonomous individuals in Western societies in sociology (e.g. Ehrenberg, 2010) is considerable. The bold use of interdisciplinary approaches is likely to enhance the general novelty and societal relevance of work stress studies and occupational health psychology in general.

4. Application of novel methodological approaches. Certain scientific conventions and ontological principles are strong in occupational health psychology. For instance, the beneficial role of individual autonomy for employees’ well-being is often taken for granted, even though the complex real-life conditions (e.g. demanding social and organisational time structures) that limit the execution of this autonomy are evident in the current work life. The conservative repetition of earlier methodological approaches and psychometric scales can easily inhibit innovation, both conceptually and methodologically. In addition to highly valued prospective research designs and randomised control trials, it would be advisable to also develop and apply multi-methodological approaches. For instance, innovative use of qualitative approaches and mixed methods would definitely improve the face validity of research results and tested models, which are too often skeleton-like and universalistic.

5. Focus on the interplay between individual and structural. The collective climate, habits of work communities and broader networks significantly influence knowledge workers. Their work is dependent on the social and organisational frameworks and environments surrounding them. Therefore, the case of “tied autonomy” offers a good example of a need to examine the impact of enabling and restricting structures on individual employees. Occupational health researchers should acknowledge these structural influences and develop approaches – both theoretical and methodological – that more adequately capture the built-in complexity of contemporary work.

Additional information

Funding

AV was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 267172] and MT by the Finnish Work Environment Fund [grant number 114079].