The Autonomy Paradox: Why We Have Less Freedom at Work Than in School
I have been thinking a lot lately about how strange it is that, over a decade after graduating university, workers seem to have less autonomy than we did as students. How did this happen? How did we go from being trusted to manage our own work to being tightly controlled in the ways, times, and places we are allowed to complete it? How can we change this while still ensuring results, accountability, and alignment?
It seems that for many knowledge workers, the way we measure work has shifted from what we produce to how long we sit at a desk. This approach may feel safer and easier to monitor, but for work that is creative, analytical, or project-based, it can stifle results rather than support them.
Think back to school. When we earned an A, we were given an assignment and a rubric. How, when, or where we completed the work rarely mattered. What mattered was the finished product. Did we meet the expectations? Did we deliver quality work? Success was measured by results, not hours spent in a chair.
Just as in school, where our grade reflected the quality of the work rather than the time spent on it, compensation in the workplace should reflect the outcomes and impact of a role, not the hours logged. As roles evolve and responsibilities grow, so too should how we measure success and reward performance. Instead of managing how and where work is done, organizations could focus on clearly defined goals and outcomes. This approach encourages efficiency, accountability, and creativity, and allows individuals to take ownership of their work while ensuring alignment with business objectives.
If you need one more way to see how this could work, consider the business perspective. Companies often struggle to pay for people's time as currently structured. We maintain a 40-hour benchmark, but as employees develop and are promoted, their time becomes more expensive, creating an increasingly high payroll and adding pressure as headcount grows year over year. What if, instead of keeping the benchmark at 40 hours, we recognized that as people become more skilled and efficient, they can "earn back" time? Completing a job in four hours instead of eight would not reduce their salary—it would be a gift of time they have earned.
Then, instead of automatically focusing on giving employees more money, the focus could shift to giving them control over how they use their earned time. They could invest in better work-life balance and return as happier, more engaged, and more productive contributors. Or they could use that time to develop new skills, expand their expertise, and apply those capabilities to the business, increasing both their impact and their earning potential in the long term. This approach aligns individual growth with organizational growth while giving employees ownership of their time and development.
Roles are meant to evolve with the person in them. As individuals grow, they naturally develop skills, expand responsibilities, and refine processes. Yet many organizations continue to follow rigid job descriptions and pre-set processes, assuming that control over every step is necessary to ensure success. This approach can limit creativity, slow decision-making, and make talented people feel constrained.
When someone steps into a role previously held by another person, it can be especially challenging. Each individual brings a unique skillset, and gaps or differences become visible. I have experienced this myself in previous roles I have held since entering the working world. Often, the tasks the previous person handled continue by default, without questioning whether they are still necessary. In this way, people can feel like they are failing, not because of their abilities, but because the role itself has not been adapted to fit current priorities or strengths.
What if we approached roles differently? What if employees were encouraged to create their own next opportunity rather than waiting for a vacancy? What if career progression was seen as a flexible, evolving path, designed to leverage individual strengths while still meeting organizational goals? Succession planning would remain important, but beyond that, individuals could take ownership of how their roles develop, ensuring that responsibilities align with what drives the most impact for the organization.
Similarly, what if employees were allowed to fully own their time? Instead of measuring success by hours logged, we could measure it by results delivered and value created. As people gain experience, they naturally become more skilled and efficient. Allowing flexibility in how work gets done does not mean giving up control. It means aligning responsibility with accountability and trusting people to deliver outcomes.
Job descriptions could be treated as living documents, evolving year over year. Responsibilities could be added, removed, or adjusted based on organizational priorities, growth opportunities, and the strengths of the person in the role. Compensation could be tied to impact rather than time, reinforcing accountability and alignment with business goals. This approach recognizes that work is dynamic and that people grow over time. It encourages employees to take ownership, focus on what truly matters, and continue developing new skills while allowing organizations to adapt talent to current priorities instead of being constrained by legacy structures.
Across the many industries I have worked in, I have noticed a serious growth problem. Organizations often struggle to develop people and roles in ways that foster engagement, creativity, and meaningful progression. Growth is frequently measured by rigid promotion paths, hours logged, or adherence to legacy processes rather than by the development of skills, ownership of work, or real impact. This lack of focus on genuine growth limits the potential of both individuals and organizations.
Reimagining work in these ways does not require removing structure or accountability. On the contrary, it is a way to strengthen results, build loyalty, and encourage employees to take ownership of what they do. Work does not have to feel restrictive. It can feel purposeful, growth-oriented, and high-performing if we trust people to deliver, measure them by outcomes, and give them space to apply their expertise.
