Recent research (Harvard Business Review, 2026) highlights an interesting tension.
• When roles and responsibilities are assigned based on organisational priorities, productivity increases by +33%.
• When employees mainly choose based on personal preference, productivity increases by only +5%.
And yet…
The latter approach is perceived as more valuable by employees (+38%).
In other words:
what feels right does not automatically create the most value.
Happiness does not automatically translate into performance
We too often assume that happy employees are naturally more productive.
But satisfaction does not automatically translate into value creation.
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) helps explain this. According to this model, motivation is driven by three basic needs:
• Autonomy
• Competence
• Relatedness
Autonomy does indeed strengthen intrinsic motivation.
But performance is also influenced by structure, role clarity, priorities and team context (Langfred & Moye, 2004).
Moreover, employees do not always accurately assess:
• whether their skills truly match a specific role
• what is strategically important for the organisation
Free choice in roles and responsibilities therefore does not automatically lead to optimal impact.
The real challenge: autonomy with direction
The solution is not to take back control.
But to place autonomy within a clear framework.
1. Autonomy and clear expectations
Provide employees with clear insight into:
• their strengths
• their development potential
• what critical roles truly require
Autonomy works better when self-efficacy is strengthened through feedback, development and clarity.
2. The power of co-creating goals
Autonomy and performance mainly clash when dialogue is missing.
Setting goals together is not about compromise.
It is a meaningful dialogue in which:
• employees share their ambitions and drivers
• leaders share strategic priorities and future needs
The value does not lie in complete freedom.
But in shared understanding.
In assessment and development practices, we consistently observe:
sustainable performance emerges when talent, motivation and organisational needs are explicitly aligned.
Conclusion
Autonomy and productivity are not opposites.
Autonomy without direction creates satisfaction.
Autonomy with direction creates impact.
The goal is not to choose between wellbeing and performance,
but to align them intelligently.
This article was written by Femke Van Loock, Consultant at Quintessence.
Sources:
A better way to manage internal talent markets. (2026, January–February). Harvard Business Review, 15–17.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.934
