The More Control You Give People at Work, The More Anxious They Get

Cover Image for The More Control You Give People at Work, The More Anxious They Get

Your company just announced full remote, flexible hours, no mandatory check-ins, and unlimited PTO.

You thought you'd feel relieved. Instead, you feel responsible for everything.

No one told you what hours to work, so now you're auditing every hour. No one defined what a successful day looks like, so you're checking Slack at 10 PM to confirm nothing's on fire. The vacation policy says unlimited, so you feel guilty for wanting to actually use it, because who takes vacation when there are no limits and your peers seem to work constantly?

You have more autonomy than you've ever had at work. You also have more anxiety.

Why Self-Determination Theory Gets Misapplied

Self-determination theory — developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester in the 1980s and refined over decades — is probably the most cited framework in workplace psychology. Its core claim is that human motivation improves when three psychological needs are met: autonomy (control over one's actions), competence (feeling effective), and relatedness (meaningful connection with others).

The autonomy finding gets treated as a policy conclusion: give employees more control, get more motivation. Forward-thinking companies adopted it as gospel. Flexible schedules, self-directed projects, remote work, results-only environments. All of it branded as respecting your team's autonomy.

Here's what gets left out of that translation: Deci and Ryan never argued that autonomy alone was sufficient. The need for autonomy is motivating in combination with the other two needs, and only when the person has genuine ownership — not just over the method of achieving a goal, but over the definition of what a good outcome looks like.

When autonomy is applied surgically — "you decide how to do it, but we decide what success means and we measure it quarterly" — it produces a specific kind of psychological burden. You're responsible for the execution while having no power over the criteria. That's not autonomy in the motivational sense. That's accountability without agency.

The Decision Fatigue Nobody Talks About

Decision fatigue is usually discussed in narrow terms: making too many choices depletes your capacity to make good choices. But there's a particular form of it that hits hardest in high-autonomy environments: meta-decision fatigue.

When your work isn't structured, you don't just make decisions about the work — you constantly make decisions about what work to do, whether you're doing enough of it, whether you're doing the right kind, and whether the pace you're setting is acceptable. These meta-decisions run as a background process. They don't show up in your task list. They just consume cognitive capacity without producing anything.

Studies on knowledge workers in self-directed roles consistently show that ambiguity of expectations correlates more strongly with burnout than workload itself. You can sustain high workload if the criteria are clear. You cannot sustain moderate workload indefinitely when you're simultaneously working and auditing whether your work is acceptable.

This is the mechanism behind "always on" culture in remote companies. When you can work from anywhere at any time, you never have a signal that it's okay to stop. The office was, among other things, a physical cue that the work day had boundaries. Autonomy dissolved that cue and didn't replace it with anything.

The Unlimited PTO Data Point

Companies that switched to unlimited PTO policies consistently report the same result: employees take fewer vacation days, not more.

The finding keeps surprising people, but it shouldn't. When vacation days are finite, using them is a right — you've been allocated twelve days and you're entitled to all twelve. When vacation days are unlimited, using them requires a judgment call: "Is it okay for me to take this week off?" That judgment call involves assessing your team's current load, your standing relative to peers, your manager's implicit expectations, and what it signals about your commitment to the organization.

The unlimited policy transfers the decision cost from the company (tracking accrual, administering carry-overs) to the employee (constantly negotiating legitimacy). Most employees resolve the ambiguity by defaulting to taking less. It feels safer than testing the implicit limits.

This is autonomy producing the opposite of its intended effect — not because autonomy is bad, but because the psychological conditions for it to be motivating weren't in place. The need for relatedness wasn't met (peers weren't visibly using the unlimited PTO either), and the need for competence was threatened (taking time off might be seen as disengagement).

The Deeper Problem: Autonomy Over the How, Control Over the What

Most organizations that pride themselves on autonomy give employees control over the how while keeping control over the what and the metric. You can work from wherever you want, on whatever schedule you want, in whatever way makes sense to you — and you'll be measured on a specific number, by a specific date, according to criteria you had no hand in defining.

That's not autonomy in the sense the research actually supports. It's the cognitive overhead of self-direction without the motivational benefit of genuine ownership.

The research on what actually sustains motivation over time consistently points to a more demanding condition: people need to feel that the goals they're working toward are ones they'd choose if they had a choice. Not just that the path to the goals is theirs. The goals themselves.

This is a harder organizational commitment than flexible hours. It means involving people in defining what success looks like, not just in executing toward it. Psychological safety is a prerequisite — you can't ask people to own outcomes if they don't feel safe saying the outcomes are wrong.

What Motivating Autonomy Actually Requires

Deci and Ryan's own follow-up research identified the conditions under which autonomy is reliably motivating:

  • Clear outcomes with flexible methods (not vague expectations with observed methods)
  • Rationale provided for constraints (when you can't choose the goal, explain why it exists)
  • Acknowledgment of negative feelings (the work is hard; that's real)
  • No surveillance of performance against micro-metrics that undercut ownership

The difference between "you decide how to hit 120% of quota" and "we designed this goal together and you have real latitude on approach" is the difference between burden and ownership. They look similar from the outside. They feel entirely different from the inside.

The companies getting this right aren't the ones with unlimited PTO. They're the ones where people could articulate not just what they're working on, but why it matters to them personally — and where that answer wasn't just a recitation of company values.

Autonomy isn't a benefit. It's a condition. And like most conditions, it only works when everything else is in place.

Photo by www.kaboompics.com via Pexels