The Measurement of Work Autonomy
Abstract
The importance of autonomy has been asserted by numerous writers in a variety of research domains, e.g., leadership, organizational climate, professionalism, and job design. In this paper, it is argued that research on job autonomy has been hindered by the way it has been conceptualized and operationalized by recent researchers. More specifically, it is suggested that the most commonly used measures of job autonomy operationally confound job autonomy with a conceptually distinct job characteristic (job interdependence/independence). Furthermore, it is suggested that for both theory development and improved organizational interventions it is important to distinguish separate areas (facets) of autonomy. This paper presents the development of a new instrument capable of tapping three distinct types, i.e., “Method A utonoly,” “Scheduling Autonomy,” and “Criteria Autonomy,” of work autonomy. Data relevant to the reliability and the validity of the instrument were gathered in two organizations. The results of several psychometric analyses suggest that the three work autonomy scales are both reliable and valid.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The correlations among the three dimensions of work autonomy (method autonomy, scheduling autonomy, and criteria autonomy) were not high, ranging from 0.34 to 0.47.
“As the correlations among the three dimensions (0.34 to 0.47) were not high (Breaugh, 1985), researchers should study work autonomy as three correlated factors instead of a second-order factor (work autonomy).”
From Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations (2024) · cites this paper as Breaugh, 1985
Cites
Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign
Karasek, R. A. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392498 · Cited by 12,597 · see citing works
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246 · see citing works
Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031152 · Cited by 2,442 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Self‐determination theory and work motivation
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.322 · Cited by 7,757 · see citing works
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 · Cited by 2,994 · see citing works
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332 · Cited by 2,303 · see citing works
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y · Cited by 2,262 · see citing works
“For example, Breaugh (1985) developed a multidimensional scale to measure the three facets of work autonomy: method autonomy, scheduling autonomy, and criteria autonomy.”
InfluentialA model of knowledge‐sharing motivation
Gagné, M. (2009) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.20298 · Cited by 608 · see citing works
- Authors
- Breaugh, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Breaugh, James A.
- ORCID
- Breaugh, James A.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1985-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 551-570
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2105611339
- Cited by
- 663
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 1.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Relations (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- employee autonomy, job independence, scale development, psychometric validation, job characteristics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review