Job Autonomy as a Driver of Job Satisfaction

Full text

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
1
JOB AUTONOMY AS A DRIVER OF JOB SATISFACTION
———————————————————————————————————————
Zychová, K., Fejfarová, M., Jindrová, A.
———————————————————————————————————————
Kristýna Zychová / Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech
University of Life Sciences Prague, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic. Email: zychovak@lib.czu.cz
Martina Fejfarová / Management Department, University of Economics and Management Prague,
15800 Prague, Czech Republic. Email: martina.fejfarova@vsem.cz
Andrea Jindrová / Department of Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University
of Life Sciences Prague, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic. Email: jindrova@pef.czu.cz
Abstract
As one of the essential human needs, autonomy affects internal motivation and drives job
satisfaction. The aim of the article is based on long-term quantitative research (n = 631) to
examine gender, age, education and job position differences in job autonomy and to
evaluate the extent to which job satisfaction and job autonomy are related. The research
showed that 72.6% of respondents have a high degree of work scheduling autonomy,
68.1% have a high degree of decision-making autonomy, and 53.9% have a high degree of
work methods autonomy. An important finding is that most respondents (84.8%) are
satisfied with their job. There are differences between generations and non/managerial job
positions regarding work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work
methods autonomy. Additionally, there is a difference between education levels regarding
work scheduling autonomy. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed positive
mutual correlations between job autonomy categories, as well as between job autonomy
categories and job satisfaction. The results also confirmed the relationships between job
autonomy categories and job satisfaction. Employees with a high degree of job autonomy
feel in their jobs more satisfied than others. On the contrary, there are no differences
between genders regarding work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and
work methods autonomy. Furthermore, there are no differences between education levels
regarding decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy. Understanding the
relationship between job autonomy and satisfaction is vital for employers and policymakers
to enhance job satisfaction, retain employees, and improve organisational performance.
Implications for Central European audience: The research reveals that employees with a
high degree of job autonomy, encompassing work scheduling autonomy, decision-making
autonomy, and work methods autonomy, experience greater job satisfaction. No gender or
education-based differences in terms of job autonomy were found, but differences exist
between generations and non/managerial job positions and job autonomy. The results
confirmed that job autonomy drives job satisfaction. Employees with a high degree of job
autonomy feel more satisfied in their jobs than others. Employers and policymakers should,
therefore, prioritise increasing job autonomy to improve job satisfaction, retention, and
organisational performance.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
2
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Keywords: employee; correlation; difference; job autonomy; job satisfaction; relationship;
research
JEL Classification: M12, M54
Introduction
The modern era brought more demanding obligations for work and family, and employees
currently experience conflict between these two areas, leading to increased stress and
decreased job satisfaction (Wang et al., 2022). Accenture's Future of Work Study from
November 2022 (Smith et al., 2022) points out the impacts of job autonomy on productive
mindsets more than work flexibility. The future of work should enable employees to be
productive, healthy and satisfied regardless of where they work (Smith et al., 2022). The
contemporary nature of work necessitates people who are committed, engaged, flexible,
and proactive (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Organisations worldwide are finding that fostering
autonomy rather than imposing constraints benefits not just their employees but also their
profitability and performance (Deci et al., 2017). Thus, greater relative autonomy and the
factors that promote it within organisations create excellent workplaces (Ryan & Deci,
2017). Because today's employees not only demand adequate pay for their work but also
care about other factors that affect their job satisfaction (Wan & Duffy, 2022), in this article,
we focus on the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction in the Czech
Republic.
1 Literature review
1.1 Job autonomy
Autonomy is one of the essential human needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and has been
regarded as an important component of professional growth (Gözükara & Çolakoğlu, 2016).
In the modern work context, autonomy plays an important role because it allows employees
to execute work tasks and work in a way that reflects their judgment and preferences (Wan
& Duffy, 2022). Thus, according to Wang et al. (2022), job autonomy promotes employees'
feelings of freedom and comfort, so they work with greater passion. Moreover, Gagné and
Deci (2005) confirmed that workplaces that support autonomy foster need satisfaction and
intrinsic motivation, thus resulting in greater work engagement and better goal attainment.
Additionally, job autonomy facilitates employees' identification with their work by reinforcing
its intrinsic value, which is crucial because it leads to greater employee job satisfaction and
employees' protection from the vulnerability associated with excessive attention to extrinsic
motivation (Kwok, 2020).
Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory defines job autonomy as an employee motivating
factor (Herzberg et al., 1993). Further, job autonomy represents one of the fundamental
characteristics in the Job Characteristics Model of work motivation. Hackman and Oldham
(1976) state that job autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance and feedback
are core elements that positively affect employees' psychological states. It is an effective
employee resource that helps them cope with job demands (Van Yperen et al., 2016). It
allows employees to use their tacit knowledge to organise their work activities in the best

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
3
manner, thus enabling more specialisation and higher productivity (van Hoorn, 2018).
Initially, job autonomy has been referred to describe the degree of freedom and
independence a person has when carrying out their work tasks (Hackman & Oldham,
1976). However, over time, this original concept has been expanded. According to
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), job autonomy based on freedom includes work
scheduling, decision-making, and work methods as three linked task aspects. Although
these job autonomy aspects previously were mainly connected to the task level, recent
changes, such as the growth of flexible work arrangements, have transferred job autonomy
to the level of the work itself (Kubicek et al., 2017). So employees can decide how and in
what order they complete their tasks, choose the pace of their work, when they begin and
end working (Carr & Mellizo, 2013), or even where they perform their work (Nijp et al.,
2012). In summary, job autonomy is the freedom employees have to decide when, where,
in what order and by what means they will work and perform their tasks (Kubicek et al.,
2017). It leads to the greater decision-making authority of employees regarding their work
execution (Leach et al., 2003). Moreover, Galletta et al. (2011) claim that high job autonomy
increases employees' sense of responsibility for their work results.
A large body of research has addressed job autonomy's impact on various aspects of
employees' working lives. Since the end of the 20th century, researchers have confirmed a
positive effect of job autonomy on the acquisition of skills and knowledge and employees'
learning motivation (Wielenga-Meijer et al., 2010), employees' psychological and physical
health (Park & Jang, 2017; van Dorssen-Boog et al., 2020) and well-being (Knudsen et al.,
2011), work engagement and career commitment (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2013), job
motivation (Ng & Feldman, 2015), and thus improving employees' productivity (Bakker et
al., 2007) and proactive behaviour (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Job autonomy reduces
adverse effects of job demands (Bakker et al., 2007; Brauchli et al., 2014; Spoor et al.,
2010), tensions caused by contradictory work and personal role pressures (Michel et al.,
2011; Ng & Feldman, 2015; Wong et al., 2014), employees' mental burnout, emotional
exhaustion (Zhou, 2020) and therefore is related to less turnover (Lin et al., 2013; Parsons
et al., 2003). Increases employee role diversity (Morgeson et al., 2005) and intrinsic
motivation, which in turn enhances employees' engagement, work performance (Nahrgang
et al., 2011) and work effort and quality (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2011). Further, job autonomy
contributes to vigorous, passionate and devoted work (Malinowska et al., 2018), developing
new and valuable ideas (Volmer et al., 2012) and thus to workplace creativity (Gagné &
Deci, 2005; Sia & Appu, 2015), which encourages employees' inventiveness (Garg & Dhar,
2017; Giebels et al., 2016).
Concerning the points mentioned above, and since job autonomy encourages employees to
believe in their competence and capabilities to accomplish their work, other work-related
aspects are also addressed. Since the effect of job autonomy on factors related to
employees' happiness has been demonstrated, it was expected to affect job satisfaction
directly. Many researchers have focused on this issue (see Humphrey, Nahrgang &
Morgeson, 2007; Lee & Ahn, 2012; Lin et al., 2013; Gözükara & Çolakoğlu, 2016; Kubicek
et al., 2017). Therefore, as stated by Zhao et al. (2022), job autonomy is considered one of
the powerful management tools to increase job satisfaction.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
4
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
1.2 Job satisfaction
In organisational culture, job satisfaction is a crucial concept that is discussed, especially in
the context of organisational success for a long time (Balzer et al., 1997). It is a broad
concept linked to overall job attitude (Gözükara & Çolakoğlu, 2016), and in the literature,
there are numerous definitions for describing it. For example, Weiss (2002) defines job
satisfaction as a positive state of emotions and expressions that results from how an
employee evaluates and relates to the job. Oshagbemi (2000) states that job satisfaction is
a self-reported comparison of desired and actual job outcomes. A more recent definition of
job satisfaction emphasises that it is the subjective feeling of the employee towards the
work, i.e. how people feel about their work and whether they like it (Lopes et al., 2014).
According to Ybema et al. (2010), it may be linked to various work-related factors, such as
pay, working conditions or hours.
Similarly to job autonomy, the Job Characteristics Theory by Hackman and Oldham (1976)
is commonly used to explain job satisfaction. They proposed five core elements to increase
employee job satisfaction (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2011). Following this theory, intrinsic task
motivation increases job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). However, as Rose (2001)
concluded, having both internal and external sources is important for a sense of
satisfaction. An example of internal sources may be an interesting job, social contribution or
skill development opportunities. On the other hand, job security, income level, and working
hours represent external sources (Clark, 2005). Further, Lin et al. (2013) revealed a
relationships between employees' age, education, profession, employment status and job
satisfaction. Carr and Mellizo (2013) stated that job satisfaction is one of the most crucial
aspects of someone's overall well-being, especially those who work for a living.
Nevertheless, job satisfaction is important not just for personal reasons and employee well-
being (Kwok, 2020) but also relates to the health of those in the employee's immediate
environment. Higher satisfaction levels are generally linked to flexible or shorter work hours
(Clark, 1997; Scandura & Lankau, 1997) and skill utilisation opportunities (Morrison et al.,
2005).
According to Gözükara and Çolakoğlu (2016), research on the direct relationship between
job autonomy and satisfaction is limited. Nonetheless, earlier research (e. g. Hackman,
1980; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Pousette & Hanse, 2002) reported a positive correlation
between job satisfaction and autonomy. This aligns with recent findings that employees
report greater job satisfaction when experiencing more autonomy (see Benz & Frey, 2004;
Thompson & Prottas, 2006; Carr & Mellizo, 2013). Further, a study by Lange (2012) reveals
the effect of the preference for autonomy and independence of the self-employed, which
causes a higher level of job satisfaction.
Since job satisfaction can be related to factors such as working conditions (Ybema et al.,
2010) or types of employees (Dong et al., 2021), we build on the assumption of Gözükara
and Çolakoğlu (2016) that job autonomy which provides employees freedom and own
decisions leads to their greater satisfaction. Our research builds on the existing gaps to
examine job autonomy's influence on job satisfaction.
The aim of the article is to examine gender, age (from the generation point of view),
education and job position differences in job autonomy and to evaluate the extent to which
job satisfaction and job autonomy are related. The article is structured as follows. The first

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
5
part of the article focuses on the theoretical background. The second part describes the
methodology. The third part is dedicated to an evaluation of the outcomes of the survey.
Subsequently, the differences and relationships between selected variables are examined.
The fourth part discusses the results and proposes practical implications. The fifth part
focuses on the conclusion, and the sixth includes references.
2 Methodology
2.1 Questionnaire
Primary data were obtained through a quantitative survey using an online questionnaire.
This quantitative survey was carried out in the period from 2017 to 2022. This period was
chosen to increase the sample size and overcome the data collection slowdown related to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire was distributed based on a random selection
of respondents, and it was ensured that this selection was not biased or predictable.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part focused on identification questions
from which information regarding identification variables was obtained. Therefore, the
questions ascertained the gender, age, level of education, job position, average working
hours per week, time worked in the position, as well as in the organisation. The next part of
the questionnaire focused on job autonomy, which we further divided according to
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) into three linked categories related to job autonomy: work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy. The
categories have been supplemented with work elements related to pace, place, time, goals,
or sense. The last part of the questionnaire focused on job satisfaction according to
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). For the second and third parts of the questionnaire, the
questions asked participants to rate how strongly they agreed with each statement. The
respondents indicated their responses using a linear numeric scale from 1 (lowest
agreement) to 15 (highest agreement) by choosing a concrete number.
2.2 Participants
The sample consists of 631 respondents. The structure of the respondents is shown in
Table 1, and additional information about the respondents is provided below.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
6
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Table 1 | Structure of respondents
Gender
Male
Female
199
31.5%
432
68.5%
Generation
Boomers
Generation X
Generation Y
Generation Z
18
2.9%
177
28.1%
235
37.2%
201
31.9%
Higher education
Yes
No
453
71.8%
178
28.2%
Job position
Managers
Rank-and-file
employees
Missing
126
20%
484
76.7%
21
3.3%
Source: own research (2017-2022)
The respondents' average weekly working time is 35.7 hours. They have been working an
average of 4.9 years in their current job position and 6.3 years in the same organisation.
The year of birth of the respondents ranged from 1952 to 2003. Based on McCrindle
(2011), age categories are divided by generations into Boomers (between 1946 and 1964),
Generation X (between 1965 and 1979), Generation Y (between 1980 and 1994) and
Generation Z (between 1995 and 2009). Missing means missing values that are absent
from the data.
2.3 Research question, hypotheses and statistical analysis
As part of our research, we wanted to determine the impact of identification variables on
work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy.
Based on the theoretical background, we formulated a research question: Are the medians
of two (or more) groups different? Following this research question, we formulated 12 null
hypotheses that assume that the medians of each group are equal. The alternative
hypotheses state that medians are not equal. We examined whether there is a significant
difference between groups (if so, which groups differ).
H01: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work scheduling
autonomy is not gender-dependent).
H02: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of decision-making
autonomy is not gender-dependent).
H03: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work methods
autonomy is not gender-dependent).
H04: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work scheduling
autonomy is not generation-dependent).
H05: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of decision-making
autonomy is not generation-dependent).

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
7
H06: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work methods
autonomy is not generation-dependent).
H07: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work scheduling
autonomy is not education-dependent).
H08: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of decision-making
autonomy is not education-dependent).
H09: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work methods
autonomy is not education-dependent).
H010: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work scheduling
autonomy is not job position-dependent).
H011: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of decision-making
autonomy is not job position-dependent).
H012: There is no significant difference between groups (the degree of work methods
autonomy is not job position-dependent).
Further, we wanted to determine the extent to which work scheduling autonomy, decision-
making autonomy, and work methods autonomy and job satisfaction are related. Based on
the theoretical background, we formulated another research question: Is there a significant
correlation between job autonomy and job satisfaction? Following this research question,
we formulated six null hypotheses that assume no significant correlation between two
selected variables in the population. The alternative hypotheses state that there is a
significant correlation between two selected variables in the population.
H013: There is no significant correlation between work scheduling autonomy and decision-
making autonomy.
H014: There is no significant correlation between work scheduling autonomy and work
methods autonomy.
H015: There is no significant correlation between decision-making autonomy and work
methods autonomy.
H016: There is no significant correlation between work scheduling autonomy and job
satisfaction.
H017: There is no significant correlation between decision-making autonomy and job
satisfaction.
H018: There is no significant correlation between work methods autonomy and job
satisfaction.
The data have been processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 28. Analysis of the data was
performed using one-dimensional and multivariate statistical methods. The descriptive
analysis was based on exploratory data analysis. The normality of the distribution of the
cardinal variables was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The exploratory data analysis
showed that the normality of the distribution was not met. Therefore, the hypotheses were
tested using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H tests. The
significance level was set at 0.05. The strength of the correlation between the two variables

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
8
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
was examined using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient using the scale given by de
Vaus (2014) as follows: 0.01-0.09 (trivial to low), 0.10-0.29 (low to moderate), 0.30-0.49
(moderate to substantial), 0.50-0.69 (substantial to very strong), 0.70-0.89 (very strong to
near perfect) and 0.90+ (perfect). The total numbers for each analysis vary according to the
frequency of respondents' answers (some respondents did not answer all questions).
3 Results
Job autonomy was divided into three linked categories in line with the structure of the
questionnaire: work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods
autonomy. The respondents indicated their agreement with individual statements using the
15-point linear numeric scale. This scale was divided into three categories: 1-5 low degree
of autonomy, 6-10 medium degree of autonomy and 11-15 high degree of autonomy. The
results showed that respondents rated the degree of autonomy on average from 10.53 to
11.73, indicating a medium to high degree of autonomy. Respondents perceived the
highest degree of autonomy in work scheduling autonomy (mean = 11.72; 72.6% of
respondents rated their degree of work scheduling autonomy as high), followed by decision-
making autonomy (mean = 11.29; 68.1% of respondents rate their degree of decision-
making autonomy as high) and respondents reported the lowest mean value in the category
of work methods autonomy (mean = 10.53; 53.9% of respondents rated their degree of
work methods autonomy as high). Although this value is lower than the previous ones, a
positive finding is that two of the three values are in the range 11-15, indicating a high
degree of autonomy, and one value is close to this range. The results also showed that
most respondents (84.8%) are satisfied with their job. The average value obtained in this
category is 12.38. Firstly, we examined gender, age (from the generation point of view),
education and job position differences in job autonomy, then we paid attention to the extent
to which job satisfaction and work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and
work methods autonomy are related.
3.1 Differences between basic identification variables and job
autonomy
The differences between gender, age (from the generation point of view), education, job
position and job autonomy categories are examined below. As the assumption of normality
of the distribution was not met, hypotheses were tested using the non-parametric Mann–
Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis H tests.
Gender
In all examined categories, the degree of autonomy reported by men and women did not
differ significantly. A high degree of work scheduling autonomy was stated by 73.4% of men
and 72.2% of women, while in the case of decision-making autonomy, it was stated by
72.4% of men and 66.2% of women, and in the case of work methods autonomy by 59.8%
of men and 51.2% of women.
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test for H01-H03 are shown in Table 2.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
9
Table 2 | Results of the Mann–Whitney U test for H01-H03
No.
There is no difference between gender
and:
p-value
Decision
H01
work scheduling autonomy
0.893
Retain the null hypothesis
H02
decision-making autonomy
0.102
Retain the null hypothesis
H03
work methods autonomy
0.067
Retain the null hypothesis
The significance level α = 0.05.
Source: own research (2017-2022)
There is no significant difference between groups. This means that work scheduling
autonomy, decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy are not gender-
dependent. The hypotheses H01-H03 were not rejected.
Generation
In the case of the distribution of respondents by generation, the differences were already
more evident. In all examined categories, respondents from Generation X stated a higher
degree of autonomy than respondents from other generations. For better clarity, the partial
results (for the category: high degree of autonomy) are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 | High degree of autonomy by generations
Distribution by
generations
High degree of
work scheduling
autonomy
High degree of
decision-making
autonomy
High degree of
work methods
autonomy
Boomers
(n1 = 18)
12
66.7%
13
72.2%
10
55.6%
Generation X
(n2 = 177)
144
81.4%
132
74.6%
107
60.5%
Generation Y
(n3 = 235)
172
73.2%
158
67.2%
126
53.6%
Generation Z
(n4 = 201)
130
64.7%
127
63.2%
97
48.3%
Total
(n = 631)
458
72.6%
430
68.1%
340
53.9%
Source: own research (2017-2022)
Employees' age may be an important factor influencing the relationship between job
autonomy and job-related and family-related outcomes. Regarding our sample of
respondents, Generation X and Generation Y reported the highest degree of work
scheduling autonomy. Generation X has the second highest number of managers in our
sample (Generation X 32.8%, Boomers 44.4%), suggesting managers generally have
higher job autonomy. Generation Y represents a younger generation of employees who are
unwilling to follow orders and directions, and thus it is evident that they prefer to work freely
and independently. When evaluating a job, this generation not only pays attention to the
salary but also considers whether they can influence the course of the work. In the case of
decision-making autonomy, Generation X again dominates, followed by Boomers, which is
in line with the job position of the generation representatives as mentioned above. The

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
10
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
same applies to work methods autonomy, but this category is generally associated with the
lowest autonomy values. What is certainly interesting is that although Generation X is
predominant in all three categories, the differences from the younger generations
(Generation Y and Generation Z) are minor. This is also consistent with our assumption that
work pattern requirements are diversifying. Young people increasingly try to organise their
working patterns according to autonomy in time and place, valuing their free time. Job
autonomy allows them to acquire knowledge and information, develop work skills, and
demonstrate competencies.
The results of the Kruskal–Wallis H test for H04-H06 are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 | Results of the Kruskal–Wallis H test for H04-H06
No.
There is no difference between
generations and:
p-value
Decision
H04
work scheduling autonomy
< 0.001
Reject the null hypothesis
H05
decision-making autonomy
0.007
Reject the null hypothesis
H06
work methods autonomy
0.001
Reject the null hypothesis
The significance level α = 0.05.
Source: own research (2017-2022)
The results of the tests of H04-H06 showed that differences between groups can be
determined with these data. The hypotheses H04-H06 were rejected and the alternative
hypotheses were accepted. This means that work scheduling autonomy, decision-making
autonomy and work methods autonomy are generation-dependent.
Education
The higher education level did not play a role in respondents' answers. Higher education
graduates surprisingly stated similar degree of job autonomy as other respondents. A high
degree of work scheduling autonomy was stated by 75.3% of respondents with a higher
education degree and 65.7% of respondents without a degree, in case of decision-making
autonomy by 68.9% of respondents with a higher education degree and 66.3% of
respondents without a degree, and in case of work methods autonomy by 54.5% of
respondents with a higher education degree and 52.2% of respondents without a degree.
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test for H07-H09 are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 | Results of the Mann–Whitney U test for H07-H09
No.
There is no difference between
education levels and:
p-value
Decision
H07
work scheduling autonomy
0.012
Reject the null hypothesis
H08
decision-making autonomy
0.078
Retain the null hypothesis
H09
work methods autonomy
0.340
Retain the null hypothesis
The significance level α = 0.05.
Source: own research (2017-2022)
The results of the test of H07 showed a difference between groups (the degree of work
scheduling autonomy is education-dependent). The hypothesis H07 was rejected and the
alternative hypothesis was accepted. The hypotheses H08 and H09 were not rejected.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
11
There is no significant difference between groups. This means that work decision-making
autonomy and work methods autonomy are not education-dependent.
Job position
In all examined categories, managers had higher degrees of autonomy than rank-and-file
employees (high degree of work scheduling autonomy: 86.5% vs 69%; high degree of
decision-making autonomy: 77.8% vs 65.7%; high degree of work methods autonomy:
67.5% vs 50.6%). The findings are consistent with the assumption that managers have
more job autonomy than rank-and-file employees.
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test for H010-H012 are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 | Results of the Mann–Whitney U test for H010-H012
No.
There is no difference between job
positions and:
p-value
Decision
H010
work scheduling autonomy
< 0.001
Reject the null hypothesis
H011
decision-making autonomy
< 0.001
Reject the null hypothesis
H012
work methods autonomy
< 0.001
Reject the null hypothesis
The significance level α = 0.05.
Source: own research (2017-2022)
The results of the tests of H010-H012 showed that differences between groups can be
determined with these data, and the hypotheses H010-H012 were rejected. The alternative
hypotheses were accepted. This means that work scheduling autonomy, decision-making
autonomy and work methods autonomy are job position-dependent.
The research results showed that in the examined sample, there are no differences in
gender regarding work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy and work
methods autonomy. Further, there are no differences between education levels regarding
decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy. On the contrary, there are
differences between generations and non/managerial job positions regarding work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy.
Additionally, there is a difference between education levels regarding work scheduling
autonomy.
3.2 Correlation between job autonomy and job satisfaction
Further, we found out the extent to which job satisfaction and work scheduling autonomy,
decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy are related. The exploratory data
analysis, based on the Shapiro–Wilk test, showed that the normality of the distribution was
not met. Therefore, the assumption of a linear correlation between job satisfaction and work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy was made
based on the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.
The results of the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and its significance value (p-
value) for job autonomy categories and job satisfaction are shown in Table 7.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
12
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Table 7 | Results of the Spearman's rho and p-value
No.
Spearman's rho
Work scheduling
autonomy
Decision-
making
autonomy
Work methods
autonomy
H013
Decision-making
autonomy
0.558**
H014, H015
Work methods
autonomy
0.528**
0.594**
H016, H017, H018
Job satisfaction
0.327**
0.374**
0.307**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: own research (2017-2022)
The results of the tests of H013-H018 showed that correlations between variables are
significant. Therefore, the hypotheses H013-H018 were rejected, and the alternative
hypotheses were accepted. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed mutual
correlations between individual job autonomy categories and job autonomy categories and
job satisfaction with the positive direction (these variables tend to increase together). Job
autonomy categories correlate substantially. The highest value is between decision-making
autonomy and work methods autonomy (Spearman's rho = 0.594), which aligns with the
fact that decision-making must also be made in setting work goals and choosing workflows,
techniques and methods.
There are several reasons why job autonomy categories are substantially correlated.
Decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy relate to the workplace's level of
control and independence. Decision-making autonomy refers to the extent to which an
employee has control over important work decisions, such as task prioritisation or solving
problems. On the other hand, work methods autonomy refers to the degrees of freedom an
employee has in choosing how to complete work, such as which tools, techniques or
methods to use. Because both types of autonomy involve a degree of control and
independence, they are related in practice. Employees who are given more decision-
making autonomy often take responsibility for their work.
Work methods autonomy is primarily focused on the methods and techniques employees
use to complete their work, while work scheduling autonomy relates to working time
allocation. The correlation between work methods autonomy and work scheduling
autonomy is lower (but still high, Spearman's rho = 0.528) because, in some cases, work
planning is not so closely linked to work methods as, e.g., decision-making and it is
possible to organise without depending on the choice of work methods.
Job satisfaction correlates the most with decision-making autonomy (Spearman's rho =
0.374), then with work scheduling autonomy (Spearman's rho = 0.327) and least with work
methods autonomy (Spearman's rho = 0.307). Work scheduling and decision-making
autonomy play a vital role in job satisfaction. Both linked categories concerning job
autonomy can improve employees' overall job satisfaction. Decision-making autonomy
affects employees who feel more involved and engaged. Conversely, the reason for the
lowest correlation between job satisfaction and work methods autonomy may be caused by
the level of fixed workflows, techniques and methods in specific organisations. This set of
fixed workflows, techniques and methods that employees must use to ensure efficiency

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
13
may limit work methods autonomy benefits. Therefore, the benefits of work methods
autonomy may be limited in some industries. Empowering employees and promoting
organisational job autonomy is vital to increase job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction is a complex construct that can be influenced by various factors such as job
design, organisational culture, social relationships at work, and individual characteristics of
employees (Yasin et al., 2020). However, our research has shown that decision-making
autonomy is among the most important factors influencing job satisfaction. Here are some
reasons why:
− Sense of control: When employees have the competence to make decisions that
impact their work, they feel a sense of control over their work, which can lead to a
greater sense of satisfaction. Making decisions and impacting outcomes gives
employees a sense of ownership over their work.
− Use of skills and knowledge: Decision-making autonomy requires employees to
use their skills and knowledge to analyse problems and propose solutions. This
can be intellectually challenging and stimulating, contributing to job satisfaction.
− Responsibility and accountability: Decision-making autonomy is also connected
with responsibility and accountability for outcomes. Employees with this type of
autonomy are likely to take pride in their work and be more invested in their work
outcomes.
In contrast, work methods autonomy has been found to be the least important job
satisfaction factor. This may be because employees generally prefer clear guidelines and
procedures for completing their work rather than figuring out things independently.
Additionally, work methods may be less important because they are often determined by
the nature of the job or the industry in which the employee works.
Work scheduling autonomy is also important but may be less important than decision-
making autonomy because it directly affects work-life balance rather than job satisfaction.
Employees with more control over their work schedules may better balance personal and
professional activities, which can contribute to overall life satisfaction. However, it may not
directly impact job satisfaction as decision-making autonomy because it does not
necessarily contribute to the sense of control and ownership over one's work.
All correlations mentioned above between job autonomy categories and job satisfaction are
moderate and statistically significant. It means that the relationships between job autonomy
categories and job satisfaction exist, employees with a high degree of autonomy feel more
satisfied in their jobs than others. However, other factors that were not the subject of our
research might be also important.
4 Discussion
According to Yarmolyuk-Kröck (2022), Central and Eastern Europe are characterised by
poor professional development opportunities, lack of job autonomy, and low levels of job
satisfaction. Therefore, job satisfaction in these parts of Europe appears to be lower than in
Western Europe (Yarmolyuk-Kröck, 2022). In the Czech Republic, the latest wave of the
LMC JobsIndex survey showed a year-on-year increase in dissatisfaction in practically all
employee groups (LMC, 2022). However, the LMC JobsIndex survey does not include the

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
14
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
issue of job autonomy. Beyond, the results of our research showed that employees with a
higher degree of job autonomy are more satisfied at work. Therefore, it is important to focus
more on the current issues of job autonomy that affect job satisfaction in European
research.
It is important to realise that job autonomy is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Its
implementation in organisations must be carefully planned and executed. In some cases,
organisations may not fully understand what job autonomy entails and how it can be
supported in the workplace, leading to employee misunderstandings and dissatisfaction.
The study by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) found that many organisations narrowly
define job autonomy, focusing only on task autonomy. For instance, blue-collar workers
might value job autonomy differently than white-collar workers, emphasising control over
their physical work environment, tools and a greater variety of learning opportunities
(Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Thus, the organisations' lack of understanding or narrow
definition of job autonomy could contribute to job dissatisfaction among employees. Future
research should, therefore, strive to develop a comprehensive understanding of job
autonomy and how to support it in various ways, including task and work autonomy,
flexibility and decision-making. Further, paying attention to the different viewpoints on job
autonomy as a basic psychological need and a job characteristic is vital. Understanding
these differences is essential for creating a work environment that fosters employee well-
being, motivation, and productivity.
Jin et al. (2022) stated that job autonomy might indicate a more general organisational
culture that values independence, self-determination, and innovation. In such culture,
employees are encouraged to take ownership of their work and to find new and better ways
to accomplish their tasks. This could lead to higher degrees of both decision-making and
work methods autonomy. Consistently with Muecke et al. (2020), who focused on job
autonomy concerning work engagement, our research revealed the importance of decision-
making and work methods autonomy. Nevertheless, regarding job satisfaction, also work
scheduling autonomy is significant. It is in line with Parker et al. (2006), who found that work
scheduling autonomy, work decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy were
all positively related to proactive work behaviour and thus supporting job satisfaction.
Further, the correlations between job autonomy categories indicate that employees who
have more autonomy in one area are also likely to have more autonomy in other areas. For
instance, a study conducted in the United States by Hackman and Oldham (1976) found
that job satisfaction and motivation were positively associated with work scheduling
autonomy, work decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy. These findings
suggest that job autonomy categories are closely linked. The reason for the strong
correlation between work decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy may be
that employees who have greater input in decision-making processes are also more likely
to have control over how they perform their work (Parker, 2003). Similarly, the correlation
between work decision-making autonomy and work scheduling autonomy might be caused
by close relation because employees who have more control over their work decisions are
also better able to manage their work schedules and boundaries between work and non-
work roles (Halbesleben, 2010; Jiang et al., 2012). Whereas our results showed the lowest
correlation between work methods autonomy and work scheduling autonomy, this
correlation is still significant. It suggests that both are closely related because it involves
giving employees more control over their work, thus promoting innovative work behaviour

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
15
(De Spiegelaere et al., 2014), proactivity (Parker et al., 2006) and job crafting (Tims et al.,
2013). Of course, other factors may explain the correlation between job autonomy
categories in specific studies or contexts. Future research should closely address them, for
example, helping and voice behaviours (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), job stress (Spector &
Jex, 1998), employee well-being, transformational leadership (Nielsen et al., 2008) or the
broader organisational culture and values around independence and creativity.
Our results align with the study of Dong et al. (2021), who found positive correlations
among work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, work method autonomy,
and job satisfaction. However, our research put on the gap that should be addressed to
test autonomy's influence on job satisfaction. Specifically in the context of job
classifications, job tenure, and types of employees (Dong et al., 2021). It corresponds with
Kubicek et al. (2017) assumption that the age of employees could be a crucial element that
affects the connections between job autonomy and outcomes related to job satisfaction.
According to our results, the respondents from Generation X stated a higher degree of
autonomy than respondents from all other generations. This is consistent with Jurkiewicz's
(2000) cross-sectional study in which Generation X significantly more likely valued job
autonomy. A more recent meta-analysis found that younger generations place a higher
value on work-life balance and flexibility, which could lead to a greater preference for work
scheduling autonomy (Costanza et al., 2012). This is consistent with our findings that work
scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy are
generation-dependent.
Concerning education, the higher education level did not play a role in respondents'
answers. In contrast to earlier findings, where job autonomy was related to employees'
higher education levels (Lin et al., 2013), our findings are diverse. However, we found that
work scheduling autonomy is education-dependent. This suggests that the relationship
between job autonomy and education level may depend on the specific dimensions of
autonomy. Nevertheless, our finding is contrary to that of Parker et al. (2010), who found
that Australian employees with higher levels of education had a positive correlation with
work decision-making autonomy. However, there was no significant relationship between
work scheduling autonomy or work methods autonomy and education level (Parker et al.,
2010). The relationship between job autonomy and education level may depend on the
specific dimensions of autonomy being considered, as well as individual preferences and
cultural factors. Thus, future research should address this.
The relationship between job autonomy and job position can vary depending on the level of
responsibility and decision-making power associated with the position. Our research
revealed that managers had higher degrees of autonomy than rank-and-file employees.
This is consistent with the findings of Morgeson et al. (2005), who found that job autonomy
is positively related to role breadth or the range of tasks and responsibilities of employees.
Whereas Schulz and Schulz (1988) found that gender influences employee autonomy, we
did not reveal significant differences between men and women in our sample. Our findings
are consistent with Smith et al. (2013), showing minimal variation among men and women
working in teams in the European Union. Results may be affected by differences in cultural
and occupational norms, social development and the importance of gender equality or
sample bias because a larger number of women (68.5%) were represented in our research.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
16
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Our research also revealed that, in our context is better to utilise a linear numeric scale
rather than a verbal one because the verbal scale can lead to an undesirable loss of detail.
According to de Vaus (2014), researchers may not always prioritise having a representative
sample when they are, for example, interested in understanding the range of responses or
ideas among people. In such cases, generalising from the sample to the entire population
becomes less important. Similarly, in our research, the selection of the sample limits the
results of our research. While the sample is suitable for data mining and allows obtaining
significant results about the relationships between job autonomy categories and job
satisfaction, the conclusions cannot be generalised to all employees in the population.
Another limitation may be the interpretation of the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.
In order not to make subjective conclusions, an established scale (de Vaus, 2014) has been
used for interpretation, which is used in several similar studies. As de Vaus (2014)
confirmed, descriptive statistics are vital in social research because they allow us to make
sense of our data. Although knowing that our sample results would hold in the population is
useful additional information, but is sterile unless we have first carefully and resourcefully
used descriptive statistics to analyse our sample data.
According to our findings, job autonomy drives job satisfaction for several reasons. Job
autonomy and job autonomy categories give employees greater control over their work,
which can increase their sense of competence and mastery. Thus, it leads to a better ability
to shape the work environment to employees' preferences and strengths. Increased
flexibility in terms of work hours, work location, and work methods allows employees to
control their work schedule and methods to manage work-family conflicts better. A greater
variety of tasks and responsibilities give employees more control over performed work and
allows them to engage in task and job crafting. Lastly, job autonomy is often associated
with higher levels of innovation, as employees who have more control over their work are
more likely to experiment with new ideas and approaches. So, it leads to a sense of
ownership and meaningful contributions to the organisation. Overall, job autonomy is an
important driver of job satisfaction, and employers who want to improve employee
satisfaction and engagement should consider offering employees more autonomy at work.
We further proposed practical implications for promoting employee satisfaction and
organisational performance, shown in Figure 1.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
17
Figure 1 | Practical implications
Source: own research (2017-2022)
Overall, this research underscores the importance of considering job autonomy as a driver
of job satisfaction in the workplace. The follow-up research should focus on the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on job autonomy and job satisfaction.
Conclusion
This research suggests that employers and policymakers should consider the importance of
job autonomy in promoting job satisfaction, employee retention, and overall organisational
performance. The finding that many respondents have a high degree of job autonomy and
job satisfaction, as well as that there are no gender differences, are promising. Still, the
differences between generations and job positions regarding work scheduling autonomy,
decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy highlight the need for targeted
interventions to improve autonomy for these employees. The positive correlations between
job autonomy categories and job satisfaction also suggest that increasing job autonomy can
lead to greater employee satisfaction. However, it is important to note that other factors not
examined in this research may also affect job satisfaction and organisational performance.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
18
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Acknowledgement
The work was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Economics and
Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague [2022A0022].
References
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work
engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274.
Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar, E. F., & Parra, L.
F. (1997). Users’ manual for the job descriptive index (JDI; 1997 Revision) and the job in
general (JIG) scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2004). Being independent raises happiness at work. Swedish Economic Policy
Review, 11(2), 95–134.
Brauchli, R., Bauer, G. F., & Hämmig, O. (2014). Job autonomy buffers the impact of work–life conflict
on organizational outcomes: A large-scale cross-sectional study among employees in
Switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-
0185/a000126.
Carr, M. D., & Mellizo, P. (2013). The relative effect of voice, autonomy, and the wage on satisfaction
with work. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(6), 1186–1201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.706818.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour
Economics, 4(4), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(97)00010-9.
Clark, A. E. (2005). Your Money or Your Life: Changing Job Quality in OECD Countries. British Journal
of Industrial Relations, 43(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00361.x.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational
differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27,
375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4.
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the
Relation of Job Insecurity, Job Autonomy, Innovative Work Behaviour and the Mediating Effect
of Work Engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318–330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12079.
De Vaus, D. A. (2014). Surveys in social research (Sixth edition). London, New York: Routledge.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations:
The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New
York: Springer.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance
employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024903.
Dong, R., Wu, H., Ni, S., & Lu, T. (2021). The nonlinear consequences of working hours for job
satisfaction: The moderating role of job autonomy. Current Psychology, 42, 11849-11870.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02463-3.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
19
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the relationship between
perceived job autonomy and work performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 20(3), 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594321003590630.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1987.tb00605.x.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322.
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Battistelli, A. (2011). Intrinsic Motivation, Job Autonomy and Turnover
Intention in the Italian Healthcare: The mediating role of Affective Commitment. Journal of
Management Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v3i2.619.
Garg, S., & Dhar, R. (2017). Employee service innovative behavior: The roles of leader-member
exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy. International Journal of Manpower,
38(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2015-0060.
Giebels, E., de Reuver, R. S. M., Rispens, S., & Ufkes, E. G. (2016). The Critical Roles of Task Conflict
and Job Autonomy in the Relationship Between Proactive Personalities and Innovative
Employee Behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3), 320–341.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316648774.
Gözükara, İ., & Çolakoğlu, N. (2016). The Mediating Effect of Work Family Conflict on the Relationship
between Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229,
253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.136.
Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11, 445–455.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.445.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources, and consequences. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory
and research, 8(1), 102–117.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1993). The motivation to work. Routledge.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the
work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How Does Human Resource Management
Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms.
Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088.
Jin, X., Qing, C., & Jin, S. (2022). Ethical Leadership and Innovative Behavior: Mediating Role of Voice
Behavior and Moderated Mediation Role of Psychological Safety. Sustainability, 14(9), 5125.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095125.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management, 29,
55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900105.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
20
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Knudsen, H., Busck, O., & Lind, J. (2011). Work environment quality: The role of workplace
participation and democracy. Work, Employment and Society, 25(3), 379–396.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011407966.
Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., Bunner, J. (2017). The Bright and Dark Sides of Job Autonomy. In: Korunka,
C., Kubicek, B. (eds) Job Demands in a Changing World of Work. Cham: Springer.
Kwok, C. (2020). Work autonomy and workplace democracy: The polarization of the goods of work
autonomy in the two worlds of work. Review of Social Economy, 78(3), 351–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2019.1690671.
Lange, T. (2012). Job satisfaction and self-employment: Autonomy or personality? Small Business
Economics, 38(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9249-8.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An
empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903321208871.
Lee, J.-H., & Ahn, H.-J. (2012). A Study on the Relationships between Job Satisfaction, Teacher
Efficacy, and Job Stress of Early Childhood Teachers. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 33(4),
129–141. https://doi.org/10.5723/KJCS.2012.33.4.129.
Lin, B. Y.-J., Lin, Y.-K., Lin, C.-C., & Lin, T.-T. (2013). Job autonomy, its predispositions and its relation
to work outcomes in community health centers in Taiwan. Health Promotion International,
28(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar091.
Littman-Ovadia, H., Oren, L., & Lavy, S. (2013). Attachment and Autonomy in the Workplace: New
Insights. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(4), 502–518.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712475282.
LMC. (2022). Češi jsou v práci méně spokojení než dřív. Chybí jim home office, ale i docenění.
Retrieved February 7, 2023, from https://magazin.lmc.eu/cesi-jsou-v-praci-mene-spokojeni-
nez-driv-chybi-jim-home-office-ale-i-doceneni.
Lopes, H., Lagoa, S., & Calapez, T. (2014). Work autonomy, work pressure, and job satisfaction: An
analysis of European Union countries. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 25(2),
306–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304614533868.
Malinowska, D., Tokarz, A., & Wardzichowska, A. (2018). Job Autonomy in Relation to Work
Engagement and Workaholism: Mediation of Autonomous and Controlled Work Motivation.
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 31(4), 445–458.
https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01197.
McCrindle, M. (2011). The ABC of XYZ Understanding the Global Generations. Sydney: University of
New South Wales.
Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents of
work–family conflict: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 689–725.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.695.
Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The Importance of Job Autonomy,
Cognitive Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
21
Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A., & Payne, R. (2005). Job design, opportunities for skill utilization,
and intrinsic job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(1),
59–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000272.
Muecke, S., Linderman-Hill, K., & Greenwald, J. M. (2020). Linking Job Autonomy to Work
Engagement: The Mediating Role of Challenge Demands. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2020(1), 13553. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.13553abstract.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021484.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). The Moderating Effects of Age in the Relationships of Job
Autonomy to Work Outcomes. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1(1), 64–78.
https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wau003.
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure for
use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, 26, 365–384.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.733543.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Brenner, S.-O., Randall, R., & Borg, V. (2008). The importance of
transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees working with older people.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(5), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2008.04701.x.
Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G., Geurts, S. A., Tucker, P., & Kompier, M. A. (2012). Systematic review on
the association between employee worktime control and work–non-work balance, health and
well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health,
38(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3307.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Is length of service related to the level of job satisfaction? International Journal
of Social Economics, 27(3), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290010286546.
Park, R., & Jang, S. J. (2017). Mediating role of perceived supervisor support in the relationship
between job autonomy and mental health: Moderating role of value–means fit. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(5), 703–723.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1109536.
Parker, S. K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating
role of work characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 620–634.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.620.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive
Motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at
work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.91.3.636.
Parsons, S. K., Simmons, W. P., Penn, K., & Furlough, M. (2003). Determinants of Satisfaction and
Turnover among Nursing Assistants: THE RESULTS OF A STATEWIDE SURVEY. Journal of
Gerontological Nursing, 29(3), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.3928/0098-9134-20030301-11.
Pousette, A., & Hanse, J. J. (2002). Job characteristics as predictors of ill-health and sickness
absenteeism in different occupational types–a multigroup structural equation modelling
approach. Work & Stress, 16(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370210162737.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
22
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Rose, M. (2001). Disparate measures in the workplace-Quantifying overall job satisfaction. The 2001
British Household Panel Survey Research Conference. BHPS-2001 Conference (pp. 5-7).
Colchester, United Kingdom.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work
hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
18(4), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199707)18:4<377::AID-
JOB807>3.0.CO;2-1.
Schulz, R., & Schulz, C. (1988). Management practices, physician autonomy, and satisfaction:
Evidence from mental health institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany. Medical Care, 26,
750–763. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198808000-00002.
Sia, S. K., & Appu, A. V. (2015). Work Autonomy and Workplace Creativity: Moderating Role of Task
Complexity. Global Business Review, 16(5), 772–784.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915591435.
Smith, C., Pape, J.-P., Ramirez, D. A., & Pienkowski, E. (2022). The Future of Work. Accenture.
Retrieved February 7, 2023, from https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/consulting/future-
work.
Smith, M., Piasna, A., Burchell, B., Rubery, J., Rafferty, A., Rose, J., & Carter, L. (2013). Women, men
and working conditions in Europe: A report based on the fifth European working conditions
survey (Fondation européenne pour l’amélioration des conditions de vie et de travail, Ed.).
Dublin: Eurofound.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.356.
Spoor, E., de Jonge, J., & Hamers, J. P. (2010). Design of the DIRECT-project: Interventions to
increase job resources and recovery opportunities to improve job-related health, well-being,
and performance outcomes in nursing homes. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 293.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-293.
Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11, 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.100.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,
and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230–240.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141.
van Dorssen-Boog, P., de Jong, J., Veld, M., & Van Vuuren, T. (2020). Self-Leadership Among
Healthcare Workers: A Mediator for the Effects of Job Autonomy on Work Engagement and
Health. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01420.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct
and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256902.
van Hoorn, A. (2018). Trust and signals in workplace organization: Evidence from job autonomy
differentials between immigrant groups. Oxford Economic Papers, 70(3), 591–612.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpy012.

Volume 13 | Issue 2 | 2024
https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.347
CENTRAL EUROPEAN BUSINESS REVIEW
23
Van Yperen, N. W., Wörtler, B., & De Jonge, K. M. M. (2016). Workers’ intrinsic work motivation when
job demands are high: The role of need for autonomy and perceived opportunity for blended
working. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 179–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.068.
Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and
creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.005.
Wan, W., & Duffy, R. D. (2022). Decent Work and Turnover Intention Among New Generation
Employees: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and the Moderating Role of Job Autonomy.
SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221094590. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221094591.
Wang, F., Zhang, Z., & Shi, W. (2022). The Relationship Between Job Autonomy and Work-Leisure
Conflict: Based on the Person-Job Fit Perspective. Psychology Research and Behavior
Management, 15, 3081–3095. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S384632.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective
experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1.
Wielenga-Meijer, E. G. A., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2010). From task
characteristics to learning: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 363–
375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00768.x.
Wong, J.-Y., Lin, J.-H., Liu, S.-H., & Wan, T.-H. (2014). Fireman’s job stress: Integrating work/non-work
conflict with Job Demand-Control-Support model. European Review of Applied Psychology,
64(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.12.002.
Yarmolyuk-Kröck, K. (2022). A case for an EU directive addressing work-related psychological risks:
An eastern European perspective. ETUI Research Paper – Policy Brief 2022.05.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4065504.
Yasin, Y. M., Kerr, M. S., Wong, C. A., & Bélanger, C. H. (2020). Factors affecting job satisfaction
among acute care nurses working in rural and urban settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
76(9), 2359–2368. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14449.
Ybema, J. F., Smulders, P. G. W., & Bongers, P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of
employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 102–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320902793691.
Zhao, J., Li, X., & Shields, J. (2022). Optimizing the relationship between job autonomy and knowledge
workers’ satisfaction: The roles of crafting and value congruence. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 60(3), 608–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12278.
Zhou, E. (2020). The “Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing” Effect of Job Autonomy and Its Explanation
Mechanism. Psychology, 11(02), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2020.112019.
The research article passed the review process. | Received: 21 April 2023; Revised: 30 June
2023; Accepted: 11 July 2023; Pre-published online: 12 October 2023; Scheduled release in the
regular issue: 2/2024 (May).