When flexibility fails: why autonomy must be structurally embedded to sustain employee engagement

Abstract

Flexible work arrangements are widely promoted as mechanisms for enhancing employee engagement by increasing autonomy. Yet empirical findings remain heterogeneous, suggesting that flexibility does not uniformly translate into sustained motivational benefits. This paper argues that such inconsistency stems from the conceptual conflation of flexibility with autonomy. We reconceptualize autonomy as a structurally embedded property of governance systems rather than solely an individual psychological perception. We introduce the construct of Structurally Embedded Autonomy (SEA), defined as the institutionalized alignment of distributed decision rights, authority-accountability structures, and coordination mechanisms under conditions of interdependence. Building on self-determination theory, the job demands-resources model, and organizational design perspectives, we develop a multilevel conceptual framework in which SEA moderates the relationship between flexible work arrangements and employee engagement. When SEA is high, flexibility reinforces perceived autonomy and supports psychological safety, thereby enhancing engagement. When SEA is low, flexibility increases coordination demands and role ambiguity, undermining engagement. The framework further specifies mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions related to task interdependence and environmental uncertainty. The study reframes flexibility not as a motivational intervention, but as a structural design challenge.