arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Job autonomy as a double‐edged sword: Good for work performance, but bad for psychological detachment

Qaiser Mehmood et al.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology2026https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70087article
AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Job autonomy is regarded as a resource that enhances motivation and performance. Yet, scholars have begun to question its uniformly positive portrayal, suggesting that job autonomy may have downsides. Addressing this debate, we examine how job autonomy can simultaneously foster desirable and undesirable outcomes for employees. Drawing from boundary theory, we propose that job autonomy increases problem‐solving pondering, which enhances task performance but impairs psychological detachment. Our findings from a three‐wave, time‐lagged, multi‐source study ( N = 331) were consistent with our predictions. For long‐term well‐being, it may be especially important to support high job autonomy employees in managing work–home boundaries that enable them to disconnect and leave work problems at work.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70087

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{qaiser2026,
  title        = {{Job autonomy as a double‐edged sword: Good for work performance, but bad for psychological detachment}},
  author       = {Qaiser Mehmood et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70087},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Job autonomy as a double‐edged sword: Good for work performance, but bad for psychological detachment

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.