Abstract
This study explores how formal leaders at various levels experience and respond to exercising their own autonomy in relationships with superiors and staff in a knowledge-dominated healthcare organization. Proposing the notion of constrained autonomy, the study suggests a way of understanding how formal leaders in mid-level positions work within autonomy–authority tensions. Based on interviews with formal leaders, I argue that formal leaders are highly aware of and deal with the autonomy tensions that occur in contradictions between structural requirements, ability to lead, and decision-making power in such complex ways that tensions are upheld and left more ambiguous than they first appeared. Thereby, the study develops literature on autonomy tensions and leadership. It also contrasts research suggesting that formal leaders sometimes deny tensions, are unaware of them, or seek to control or eliminate them and questions the sharp division between autonomy and authority often found in literature. The notion of constrained autonomy may also assist formal leaders navigate daily workplace tensions in knowledge-dominated healthcare contexts.
Introduction
You are the stoker in hell. […] No matter what you do, you are wrong! Because there are always tensions between the professional fields and the leadership field. They clash all the time. This is not a factory, here you work with people. You do not work with parts or canned food that are products, right, and blah blah blah, it is people, all the time. […] I have created myself a lot of space, because I have been very clear in my positions. (Lisa, interviewee)
The study fills an important research gap by examining how mid-level formal leaders in a knowledge-dominated organization in healthcare experience and respond to issues in exercising their own autonomy through relationships with superiors and staff. Professional autonomy has taken center stage in these settings because of the continuing challenges it poses for healthcare reforms, improving quality and patient safety, cost containment, and resource allocations (Byrkjeflot and Jespersen, 2014; Denis et al., 2010; Freidson, 2001; Harding et al., 2014; Jespersen, 2005; McGivern et al., 2015; Raelin, 1989). Because of this, formal leaders need to seek cooperative and collaborative relationships with healthcare professionals. But formal leaders also have to exercise authority, as legitimately required by their positions, and thus need to seek cooperative and collaborative relationships with superiors. How formal leader autonomy–authority relationships play out with both staff and superiors is therefore an important issue for healthcare organizations. Yet, the question of what constitutes leaders’ autonomy is a neglected topic in healthcare settings and in research on “leader”/“follower” dynamics and relationships. While formal leaders in mid-level positions have not been neglected in research on health, leadership, and organizing (Arman et al., 2012; Harding et al., 2014; Kempster and Gregory, 2017; McGivern et al., 2015; Spurgeon et al., 2015; Stohl and Cheney, 2001), their autonomy-dilemmas, paradoxes, and tensions remain under-researched and theorized. This neglect may have significant consequences for leadership and organizational development (Jarzabkowski and Lê, 2017; Smith and Lewis, 2011), and formal leaders must learn to navigate everyday tensions to not feel like “stokers from hell.” As such, an empirical study will help advance understanding and facilitate the development of theory (Carroll et al., 2008; Raelin, 2011; Tengblad, 2012).
To study the intricacies around autonomy in this context, I interviewed formal leaders from four levels of a healthcare organization. Based on thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), I developed the notion of constrained autonomy to highlight how formal leaders at various organizational levels work within tensions, i.e. finding a balance between areas where they can exercise autonomy and where they cannot, sometimes creating new possibilities for autonomy for themselves and sometimes providing more staff autonomy.
The paper is structured as follows. I begin with a description of the research context. Then, I discuss leadership tensions in mid-level positions and provide a conceptual discussion of autonomy, authority, and leadership challenges. After the “Research design and method” section describing the participants, interview practice, and approach to reduce the interview material into overall themes, I analyze the interviews and develop and discuss the notion of constrained autonomy.
Context
The purpose of this study was to explore how formal leaders at various organizational levels experience and respond to issues in exercising their own autonomy through their relationships with superiors and staff. I conducted 17 in-depth interviews with formal leaders of a public healthcare organization in Norway. The study was part of a larger exploration of leadership challenges in large and small, public and private knowledge-dominated organizations.
Healthcare organizations in Norway are comparable to other Western healthcare organizations; they need to adhere to governmental regulations, employ various groups of health professions, and struggle with implementing values of new public management (e.g. Byrkjeflot and Jespersen, 2014; Døving et al., 2016). In line with studies conducted in other countries (Arman et al., 2012; Byrkjeflot and Jespersen, 2014; Denis et al., 2010; Freidson, 2001; Harding et al., 2014; Spurgeon et al., 2015), Norwegian healthcare organizations have also been identified as especially challenging settings for formal leaders and as sites for various tensions (e.g. Grund, 2016; Kjekshus, 2016; Torjesen et al., 2011). Part of these tensions stems from the decision to combine administrative, economic, and professional functions in one role, necessitating a strengthening of formal hierarchy, and from the fact that some formal leaders in Norwegian healthcare may have non-clinical/medical backgrounds.
I use the term formal leader to represent interviewees who had the word leader in their job title and/or talked about it as such. While some studies argue for a clear division between management (manager as coordinating/controlling), leadership (leader as inspirational), and power (dictator as using force) (Alvesson et al., 2017), management and leadership are “often interwoven” (Collinson, 2014: 37) in practice, and they may also be understood as forms of power. Additionally, in the Norwegian healthcare context, formal leader positions include responsibility for leadership/management, professional fields, and budgets. It therefore makes sense to use the term formal leader in this study. However, the use of terms and responsibilities included in formal positions may differ across contexts and countries (Spurgeon et al. (2011) and Spurgeon et al. (2015)). Therefore, I emphasize autonomy tensions as a general leadership problem and detail how these tensions are often “knotted” constructs (Sheep et al., 2017).
Leader autonomy and authority
Tensions in organizational life of leaders
Formal leaders in mid-level positions are likely to experience autonomy-related tensions due to paradoxes in organizational structures (Balogun, 2003; Jarvis, 2012; Stohl and Cheney, 2001). In their vertical and hierarchical relationships, formal leaders often “get caught between their subordinates and the needs of upper management” (Martin, 2004: 149, citing Putnam (1986)). Managing vertical relationship requires formal leaders to coordinate, communicate, and make sense of information and of initiatives (Balogun, 2003; Balogun and Johnson, 2004). While this may facilitate communication “between the operating and top levels of management” (Floyd and Lane, 2000: 158), it may also block organizational development and change (Huy, 2002) and result in challenges as knowledgeable individuals may find such efforts irrelevant or in opposition to their professional knowledge, norms, and values (Alvesson and Blom, 2015; Alvesson et al., 2017; Denis et al., 2010; Freidson, 2001; Jespersen, 2005; Raelin, 1989).
Focusing on the vertical relationships between formal leaders, a number of studies have highlighted how tensions may result in complex ethical dilemmas, such as having to choose between one’s personal morals and complying with the expectations of upper leaders while also keeping the organization’s interests and image in mind (e.g. Dean et al., 2010; Kälvemark et al., 2004; Kempster and Gregory, 2017). The literature on organizational change, strategy, and performance describe autonomy-related tensions and stress as arising due to the contradictory functions of formal leaders in mid-level positions who are important for the implementation of changes, strategies, and plans, but who have limited autonomy (Belasen and Belasen, 2016; Birken et al., 2012; Conway and Monks, 2011; Fleming and Spicer, 2014; Floyd and Lane, 2000; Huy, 2002; Rouleau, 2005).
Intersecting vertical and horizontal relationships may also create issues for formal leaders in terms of identity-related and positional struggles (Stohl and Cheney, 2001). Harding et al. (2014: 1213) show how middle managers find themselves dealing with contradictory subject positions and that they “are both controlled and controllers, and resisted and resisters.” Focus has also been directed to identity tensions arising when professionals move into formal leader positions and become “hybrids” (Byrkjeflot and Jespersen, 2014; Croft et al., 2015; Fulop, 2012; Harding et al., 2014; McGivern et al., 2015; Spehar et al., 2015; Spyridonidis et al., 2015). Scholars have pointed to identity tensions arising when professionals embrace managerial, entrepreneurial, or calculative discourses (McGivern et al., 2015: 413). Navigating several roles may affect how leaders make decisions, lead, and experience tensions, inspiring studies to focus on leaders’ emotional management of complex paradoxes (e.g. Croft et al., 2015; Gardner et al., 2009; Gunnarsdóttir, 2016; Huy, 2002; Kempster et al., 2019).
Despite research on the autonomy-related tensions of formal leaders, how leaders themselves struggle with their own autonomy and how this relates to leadership in knowledge-dominated organizations is empirically underexplored. In particular, how the autonomy–authority dilemmas, paradoxes, and tensions of formal leaders in mid-level positions play out in their relationships with professional staff and with superiors in healthcare organizations remains under-researched.
Understanding autonomy, authority, and leadership
Autonomy is typically understood in terms of freedom, independence, and capacity to self-govern (Alvesson et al., 2017). Authority, on the other hand, normally refers to the accepted and legitimized power someone can exercise (Weber, 1978a, 1978b), i.e. “the ‘right’ one individual has to direct the actions of another” (Ladkin, 2015: 16). From a leadership perspective, autonomy is often linked with the struggles of people in mid-level positions to self-govern and be independent of interference from above, while authority may be associated with a formal leader’s capacity to give instructions to subordinates.
Autonomy–authority tensions arise when formal leaders exercise their authority downwards while their knowledgeable staff require freedom, leeway, and control over their work based on their expertise and experience (Alvesson and Blom, 2015; Costas and Kärreman, 2016). These tensions have been linked with structure, agency, and power struggles (Collinson, 2014; Stohl and Cheney, 2001), because staff enact their agency and power rather than passively accepting formal authority (Rost, 2008; Tourish, 2014). This has led to the understanding that the term “follower” is less appropriate in knowledge-dominated settings.
Autonomy–authority tension becomes “knotted” (Sheep et al., 2017), when one considers that formal leaders may also have to report to someone above them. Acknowledging that staff may need more autonomy than the formal mid-level leader can provide given the constrains of hierarchy and positional authority, formal leaders may seek to construct more autonomy to have greater ability in handling their staff’s requirements. Consequently, they may also engage in autonomy–authority struggles with their superiors as they try to gain the autonomy to deal with claims for autonomy from their staff. I suggest that in these mid-level positions, autonomy and authority are particularly intertwined as leaders try to manage the demands of their superiors and their staff. The quote from Lisa above highlights this complex struggle and tension to which she responds in terms of “creating space.”
Research design and method
Participants
As mentioned in the introduction, the present paper builds on interviews with formal leaders at various levels in a Norwegian healthcare organization. Table 1 provides an overview of the groups of formal leaders I interviewed.
Overview of participants.
The interviews lasted one to three hours, and except for one Skype interview, all interviews took place in the leaders’ offices at the clinic. I employed the critical incident technique (Butterfield et al., 2005) whereby interviewees recall specific, recent experiences. Because the formal leaders related to instances when they felt they acted effectively or ineffectively, the interviews can best be described as reflective conversations based on a few open questions around leadership experiences in knowledge-dominated contexts. Taking this approach ensured that I got to hear participants’ ideas about leadership and their experiences with leadership linked to everyday activities. Utilizing this interviewing practice and logic of discovery (Locke, 2011) allowed issues to emerge naturally in relation to autonomy, authority, and leadership.
I recorded the interviews, and in my transcriptions, I indicated raised voices with italics and commented on other elements such as laughing, sighing, and use of irony in brackets. Noting such expressions directed my analysis toward leaders’ feelings. Most of the interviews included humor and irony, and some became emotional. As such, I gained rich material, which further confirmed that tensions, feelings, and frustrations are a highly relevant topic in leadership.
Data analysis
I took an inductive thematic analysis approach to analyzing the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006), focusing on the feelings and tensions formal leaders expressed around autonomy. Thematic analysis worked well for the present study because it helped identify, order, and interpret the multiple comments and observations of participants and thereby reduce the interview material into overall, emerging themes (King and Brooks, 2017).
I transcribed all interviews with leaders, noting sentences, words, and tensions that related to autonomy. These included feelings of frustration, challenges around decision-making and responsibilities, hierarchical boundaries, economic constraints, and power of knowledgeable staff. After transcribing all the interviews, I identified general similarities and differences across interviews and produced a list of potential emerging autonomy-related themes for each leader group. Many themes of each organizational level overlapped, such as the differing expectations of “good” leadership, the emphasis on hierarchy and organizational structure, and challenges in leading knowledgeable staff.
I uploaded all interview transcripts to the qualitative analysis software MAXQDA. The software’s coding and color-marking tools assisted me in ordering the possible themes into more defined themes with sub-themes and connections/overlap with other themes. I coded each formal leader’s feelings of restriction in autonomy and challenges regarding their authority, then coded each leader’s response to (how they dealt with) struggles in exercising autonomy. This included sometimes being disloyal or unfaithful to the communication line inherent in the formal organizational hierarchy and not implementing all the rules stemming from the government’s steering documents.
Third, I went through all these preliminary, initial codes, re-coding and refining them into clearly defined themes. Once I had coded all the interview transcripts this way, I ended up with nine clearly defined themes based on all the interview transcripts. Looking for patterns and insights that would help in understanding how formal leaders at various organizational levels experience and respond to exercising their own autonomy, I examined how formal leaders at each of the four organizational levels experienced autonomy in terms of “upward” and “downward” tensions and how they handled these. I compared their experiences across levels. This highlighted that formal leaders’ struggles around autonomy and what they referred to as leadership were highly complex or “knotted” (Sheep et al., 2017). As such, autonomy struggles seemed to be linked with tensions between leadership and structure, leadership and power, and power and structure. In this way, three themes—hierarchy/structural requirements, limited ability to lead, and reduced formal leader power—emerged from the interview material in relation to autonomy–authority tensions.
Autonomy tensions around structure, leadership, and power
The following themes represent what was said across interviews and thus represent the experiences of all participants. Use of pseudonyms and other similar anonymizing actions are noted. The analysis is organized according to the themes, the tensions between them, and around the four organizational levels. For an overview, the three main themes and how they play out across the four organizational levels are summarized in Table 2.
Overview of main themes.
Hierarchy/structural requirements and limited ability to lead: Loyalty and line leadership tensions
This section focuses on formal leaders’ experiences of tensions between hierarchy/structural requirements and limited ability to lead—often expressed as issues around loyalty and line leadership.
Top-level leaders
One of the top-level leaders, Chris, highlights how hierarchy/structural requirements contradict ability to lead. This created tensions that constrained Chris’ autonomy: […] we can develop routines and procedures, and practices, and so on, but it must always be within, it cannot go beyond the Occupational Health Act or [other acts] other laws or agreements that exist in, exist in Norway, so eh (sighs). And usually, that’s enough room for you to lead properly, well, yes […] I have employed the department leaders to assist me in this responsibility, right […] departments, like the line, er, leaders.
Department leaders
Like top-level leaders, department leaders were constrained by hierarchy/structural requirements and tensions arising in relation to these requirements. For example, Rene says: I may, well, I can find myself in a situation where I can say to [top-level leader] that I disagree […] but I do what [top-level leader] tells me to do. I cannot be disloyal to [top-level leader] and say, er, pretend that I agree and then go and do something different. That is disloyal.
Assistant leaders
Assistant leaders were employed to help department leaders in their daily work. Assistant leaders were therefore responsible for strategy implementation and the development of new suggestions, but they had no official (though in some cases practical) personnel responsibility. Assistant leaders also emphasized that loyalty and line leadership function as a structural constraint on their autonomy. As Simon puts it: There are things that are decided in the leader line above me that I have to relate to, and which constrain my autonomy. It is producing a frame around what I’m allowed to do […] But er, one goes on the side of line-leadership in order to create maneuvering-room. A little more autonomy, er, er […] And after having worked in the system for a while, one will have created some networks and contacts. Er, and when we wanted to do something which was, should I say, more than we ought to do […] Had I kept to the line, I’m unsure if I had been given the room to do everything we wanted to. But then it’s about using the network, trying from different angels […] and yes, start some projects, apply for funds, and open for more opportunities […] Then one creates more opportunities […] So, one can, once in a while, go outside the line (smiles) without er, being disloyal to one’s closest leader, but, but, er, using resources a little more creatively.
Team leaders
Elizabeth also felt that structural requirements clashed with how she preferred to enact leadership. This clash was enforced and influenced by the knowledge-dominated context in which she was supposed to lead: Leadership in my position, that’s er (pause) yes, so I receive demands. I have to deal with that. And then it’s making the best of it. I have a very small space for my own […] I am very aware that er, I am a leader, I am not a chief. I am completely aware that the staff has lots, lots of responsibility. I don’t follow them like a hawk and watch and see that they do the things they should. I have an expectation that, er, things will be done and that once we have decided that it should be solved that way, it will be […] It’s quite hard to endure as leader, and the team is very strong. Often, small subgroups emerge in the team […] If you then come in as a leader at my level and think, here I’M the chief, it’s me, then you’ll quickly meet resistance. But I come in […] I think it’s okay to lead. Lead in the right direction.
Limited ability to lead and reduced formal leader power: Decision-making challenges
This section focuses on formal leaders’ experiences of tensions between limited ability to lead and reduced formal leader power—often expressed as challenges with decision-making.
Top-level leaders
Top-level leaders highlighted that decision-making had its challenges. Chris explains why: The leader team has much more power than I alone, even if it apparently seems as though I have all the power. Because I make decisions. But I make decisions based on a discussion in this team. Because it would be very scary if I started making decisions on my own, which influenced those [working here and our patients], because you need a professional insight to make sensible decisions. So, I lean heavily on them.
Despite this decision-making process, formal decisions sometimes led to “fights”—a word used by Chris and other top-level leaders—between formal leaders, knowledge-workers, and unions: They try to squeeze in all possible ways, er, for them to get [specific work-rights]. So then, then, it is a squeeze between, should we hold on to the overall goal of [organizing principle] or in some way consider [doing as the knowledge-workers wants] … And now they have won the case in the labor court […] Er, so that’s a dilemma. We have different interests.
Department leaders
Similar dynamics were at play for department leaders. Hannah explains how decisions need to be developed based on the expertise of knowledge-workers, which meant that her own leader autonomy and discretion in decision-making was limited: In that process, because it’s a process when you are going to develop a decision […] you must be very responsive to the employees and confirm that they come with nuances and improvements to your decision. And it must be noted that this was something you said, it was your idea, it was a really good idea. You must not steal it.
However, this style of leading contrasted with the principle of line leadership meant to install leadership effectiveness and control. As department leaders had to yield to be responsive to staff’ expertise, and not to be perceived too authoritarian, it created complex, interrelated, and overlapping tensions (Sheep et al., 2017) between hierarchy/structural requirements, differing leadership ideas, and limits to formal leader power. Constraining one’s own autonomy, department leaders upheld autonomy tensions and constructed leadership as a complex process for keeping tensions in play rather than controlling, eliminating, or denying them.
Assistant leaders
Simon also describes how his ability to lead and his decision-making power are challenged by the expertise and power of knowledge-workers, who want a say in decision making. Other assistant leaders reported similar experiences. As a result, they emphasized how they spent a great deal of time having conversations with and cautiously caring for their relationships with staff. However, this “relational approach” was difficult because of the loyalty expectations of upper leaders, and Simon found himself pressured to enact more controlling forms of leadership: I really stood there alone and felt that I enacted leadership in standing there, talking to those who were there, er, accomplishing some meetings where they could bring their stuff and, and, and, but sticking to the decision that was made. That direction and in no way shy away from it, despite their frustration.
Team leaders
Team leaders also needed to consult with staff before thinking about deciding (or implementing) anything. Michael explains how this constrained his autonomy to make decisions and influenced his ability to lead: Professionally, I have the knowledge to make a decision, and it will be appropriate and reasonable. But then I lose, I will never be able to make it work […] So strategically, I have to go the rounds of discussion […] So I must, so I must, if you as a leader at a lower level which I am here do not have any support in the organization, you are finished.
Hierarchy/structural requirements and reduced formal leader power: Issues around prioritizing and developing ideas
This section focuses on formal leaders’ experiences of tensions between hierarchy/structural requirements and reduced formal leader power—often expressed as issues around prioritizing and developing ideas.
Top-level leaders
In this study, hierarchy/structural requirements constrained top-level leaders’ autonomy in terms of their freedom to prioritize and organize. Chris, a top-level leader says: I have been delegated authority from the CEO to take responsibility for the [organization] within a budget-frame, right. So, if I keep budgets and do the assignments we have got from – we receive an assignment document from the Ministry of Health […] Then, in the assignment document, there will be something about [specifies tasks] that we must do. And then there will also be employer and HSE requirements and all that […] But within that, right, er, I feel that I have a relatively large freedom to exercise leadership.
Department leaders
Tensions between hierarchy/structural requirements and formal power caused frustrations among department leaders, as it squeezed their autonomy to prioritize ideas and values and develop suitable leadership. Nora highlights this in the following quote: […] my leader is engaged with economy. But we need to get things going. And then, we have professionals and values, ethics and moral things become, then one really becomes the middle between the bark and the tree […] But that’s where I think, if you spend a little bit of time, if you start in the small […] think a little and go some rounds and look at what you can you do. Just to get someone with me, so that it does not create a huge resistance. Because it’s a bit like that, I think sometimes you must choose your fights, so that’s what I’m doing now.
Assistant leaders
While assistant leaders felt constrained in decision-making and had to shape their leadership to adhere to the principle of line leadership, they felt even further constrained by their limited power to prioritize initiatives and develop the organization and their teams as they deemed necessary. For example, Kelly said the following: I often feel so frustrated working in [organization]. I feel, I’m so [swears] tired that HR does not help […] Right, I get so [swears] tired from feeling that, yes, I feel I will never be able to hire anyone as long as HR have the power, they have […] But with patient cases (pause), I trust the specialist. And then I put the responsibility back to the specialist and say that […] I am responsible for operations, I’ll take care of this, but this man is paid more than me to take the professional responsibility.
Team leaders
The quote below from an interview with Sam highlights how autonomy of team leaders is also constrained by tensions between structural requirements and (lack of) formal power: (Sighs) So it is limited. You are, in many ways, a toothed gear wheel in a knit stitch, right … those who stay as leaders, manage to find this little hatch where, here, I have autonomy. Er, everything else is system requirements that I must do. This I must do, there is no [possibility for autonomy], but just inside here (draws a square on the table), I can actually use myself and try to fill it with what I’m interested in and think is exciting, right.
Discussion: Upholding and creating constrained autonomy
Contrary to previous research suggesting that formal leaders sometimes deny tensions or are unaware of them (Collinson, 2014), or seek to control or eliminate them (Putnam et al., 2016), I argue that formal leaders are highly aware of autonomy tensions and construct them in complex, contradictory, and “knotted” ways (Sheep et al., 2017), so that tensions are upheld and left more ambiguous than they first appeared. Indeed, leadership seems to be a matter of keeping tensions in play rather than managing (i.e. denying, controlling, or eliminating) them, which further suggests a way to balance the two contradictory modes of organizing—leadership or autonomy (Alvesson et al., 2017) and accommodating the complex dynamics between “leaders” and “followers.”
Having discussed how multiple, simultaneously overlapping, and mutually reinforcing tensions between hierarchy/structural requirements, the limited ability to lead, and reduced formal leader power result in restrictions to enact leadership, make decisions, and prioritize work, I propose the notion of constrained autonomy as a way of conceptualizing these tensions. While the notion of constrained autonomy can be found in a few other studies, these are to my knowledge all conducted in fields with different foci, and the notion is only poorly defined. Honig (2019), for example, discusses politically constrained autonomy in international development organizations, and argues that constraints affect management’s control over field agents. However, the study does not focus on the organizational level, nor defines the notion. Lau and Wenzel (2015) also apply the term, but although their quantitative study discusses various parameters connected with autonomy, the meaning of constrained autonomy is not well discussed. The closest understanding of constrained autonomy to the present study is found in O’Carroll’s (2015) study on work time bargains. It suggests that people sometimes constrain their own autonomy in bargains and indicates that autonomy may be a rhetorical concept.
In summary, these studies introduce the notion of constrained autonomy and the idea that formal leaders despite and because of formal positions of authority may be constrained in different ways, yet the studies do not specify what they mean by the notion or provide thorough insights into the struggles of formal leaders and the complex, knotted ways in which they approach autonomy–authority tensions. Based on the analysis above, I therefore suggest that the notion of constrained autonomy may be used to highlight how formal leaders create and uphold tensions by “working within and around,” “creating more room,” and “providing more autonomy to staff” to deal with autonomy–authority related tensions, their in-between positions, and expectations around leadership in knowledge-dominated organizations. It may be helpful to imagine tensions as stemming from overlapping dynamics as illustrated in Figure 1.

Tensions between themes.
Taking the starting point in tensions between autonomy–authority and autonomy–leadership as contradicting modes of organizing (Alvesson et al., 2017), Figure 1 illustrates how formal leaders may create and uphold tensions stemming from overlapping dynamics between structure, leadership, and power. In various interrelated ways, formal leaders split or compartmentalized autonomy-related tensions, which made it possible to maneuver between different responses to these tensions such as “working within and around,” “creating more room,” and “providing more autonomy to staff.” It seems that the hard lines theoretically drawn between autonomy–authority and autonomy–leadership were in practice dealt with in much more dynamic ways—involving the creation and upholding of tensions between structure, leadership, and power.
Working within and around: Being loyal, constraining own autonomy
Top-level leaders, department leaders, and assistant leaders described how they dealt with tensions by “working within and around” hierarchy and structural requirements to exercise some form of leadership and power. Top-level and department leaders dealt with constraining elements by “working within and around” requirements and expectations. By imposing constraints on themselves, they appeared responsive to staff, without risking their loyalty to upper-level leaders.
Assistant leaders dealt with autonomy–authority tensions by discussing decisions with staff, highlighting that knowledge-workers needed to be accountable for work quality and that assistant leaders could only be held responsible for operational tasks. Thus, they also constrained their own area for influence and autonomy.
Working within autonomy–authority tensions by constraining own autonomy and dividing work did not eliminate, remove, or solve tensions between structural requirements, formal power, and leadership actions. It involved the acceptance of working within contradicting expectations from above and below to tolerate tensions in autonomy–authority between leader levels and between leaders and knowledge-workers. Paradox literature has explained these interwoven, knotted contradictions as relational dialectic tensions that keep incommensurate positions in play (Putnam et al., 2016; Sheep et al., 2017). As such, working within tensions facilitated leaders keeping tensions in play, rather than denying, controlling, or eliminating them (Collinson, 2014).
Creating room: Being strategic, sidestepping the line, choosing your fights
In addition, department, assistant, and team leaders, contrary to the approach described above, dealt with autonomy–authority tensions by “creating more room” for their own autonomy. This was accomplished when department leaders “chose their fights” and thus navigated between the goals, strategies, budgets, and expectations from above and the values, ethics, and morals of staff to “get things going.” This approach seemed to work as a way of moving processes, decisions, work, etc. in the direction department leaders wanted, sometimes without full authorization from upper-level leaders and sometimes without full acceptance from staff. A similar approach was described by assistant leaders when they “sidestepped” the line leadership principle, technically being disloyal but legitimizing this by creating more opportunities for the organization and acquiring funds. Team leaders created more room for own autonomy by “being strategic,” “going through rounds of discussion,” and “creating small hatches” of interesting professional work.
These examples show how leaders at different organizational levels responded to autonomy–authority and autonomy–leadership tensions in similar ways. Constructing other tensions, e.g. between creating order and allowing for chaos, between loyalty and disloyalty, between dictating and allowing for discussion, between leadership and professional work, formal leaders privileged differences and tensions to develop “new space” (Putnam et al., 2016: 127)—new forms of autonomy within constraints—navigating contradictory ideas and forms of organizing (Alvesson et al., 2017). This is different from tolerating tensions by “working within,” and leadership thus surfaced through using tensions to develop options. However, top-level leaders may not have been able to “create room” as they were the guarantors for line leadership and for implementation of the CEO’s decisions. This may indicate that “creating room” for autonomy is easier and more acceptable the less power and responsibility one assumes for deciding hierarchical requirements.
Providing more autonomy to staff
“Providing more autonomy to staff” was a tension response, or a result of other tension responses, enacted by formal leaders across all organizational levels. It always came at the expense of leaders’ own formal autonomy and authority. Thus, it involves a tension itself. For example, staff were provided more autonomy when top-level leaders and department leaders chose to constrain their own autonomy to be responsive to them. Simultaneously enforcing control through line leadership, they switched between use of formal power and loyalty in the upper hierarchy, and delegating power and allowing autonomy for staff. They created tolerable forms of temporarily constrained autonomy for themselves, becoming controlled controllers (Harding et al., 2014) and providers of autonomy.
Slightly differently, and perhaps using some of the autonomy provided to staff (including lower-level leaders), assistant leaders and team leaders dealt with autonomy–authority related tensions by sidestepping line leadership and choosing “not to watch them like a hawk.” Thus, they arguably minimized potential conflicts from below, but by giving voice to staff they also had to constrain their own professional knowledge and formal leader power. In this process, formal leaders embraced multiple tensions at various levels and the differing expectations from above and below, and used this as a basis for reframing “the dynamic interplay between opposites” (Putnam et al., 2016: 127) to form new tensions and meanings which allowed them to lead in a way they found suitable for the context, both despite and because of differing expectations and values.
Being in the middle, formal leaders thus took different approaches to deal with the practical and emotional discomfort of boundaries to their autonomy. While formal leaders often felt like “being the stoker in hell,” they found ways of tolerating and even using tensions as opportunities for autonomy to lead. As illustrated above, this approach results in and from the upholding of multiple tensions—leaving them more ambiguous than they first appeared. Following this, constrained autonomy provides a nuanced way of accommodating and influencing autonomy–authority and autonomy–leadership tensions—both in theory and in practice.
Conclusion: Constrained autonomy
Much literature on formal leader autonomy seems to build on the idea of a sharp division between autonomy and authority. While Alvesson et al. (2017) has developed a model suggesting that autonomy and leadership are different and often contradictory modes of organizing, this paper has explored how formal leaders at various organizational levels experience and respond to exercising their own autonomy and authority in their relationships with superiors and staff in a knowledge-dominated context. Based on interviews with formal leaders and through a thematic analysis of these, I have shown how autonomy tensions evolve around and between formal leader levels and result in struggles around loyalty and line leadership, challenges in making decisions, and frustrations around lack of ability to prioritize and develop ideas. Contrary to previous research suggesting that formal leaders sometimes deny struggles and tensions or are unaware of them (Collinson, 2014), or in other ways seek to control or eliminate them (Putnam et al., 2016), I have illustrated that formal leaders are highly aware of autonomy tensions and construct them in such complex, contradictory, and “knotted” ways (Sheep et al., 2017) that tensions are rather upheld and left more ambiguous than they first appeared.
To conceptualize the intricacies around autonomy, I have proposed the notion of constrained autonomy. This notion has been used in a few other studies (e.g. Honig, 2019; Lau and Wenzel, 2015; O’Carroll, 2015) without specific definitions or a common and comprehensive expression of the complexities and challenges that formal leaders may experience around autonomy–authority tensions. The present study develops the notion and adds to this literature by highlighting how formal leaders at various organizational levels work within tensions—finding a balance between work where they can exercise autonomy and work where they cannot—sometimes creating new possibilities for autonomy for themselves and sometimes providing more autonomy to staff. While accepting constrained autonomy helped formal leaders tolerate autonomy–authority tensions, even using them as opportunities for creating new forms for autonomy, tensions were simultaneously upheld. Following, and complementing the model of autonomy–leadership (Alvesson et al., 2017), constrained autonomy seemed to be a way of conducting leadership in knowledge-dominated organizations characterized by complex power relations between “leaders” and “followers” (Collinson, 2014; Stohl and Cheney, 2001; Tourish, 2014). The notion of constrained autonomy thereby provides leaders with a practical way to enhance reflexivity around their leadership, power, and responses to tensions (Putnam et al., 2016; Sheep et al., 2017).
The study is narrow in its scope in studying the autonomy struggles of a relatively small number of formal leaders of one Norwegian organization. However, as universals have been found in particulars (Kempster et al., 2019), providing deeper insight into an additional layer of organizational tensions that people in various mid-level positions are likely to experience, the paper is suggestive of the challenges other formal leaders may face when seeking to lead in knowledge-dominated organizations. On a similar note, being willing recruits or reluctant formal leaders may have made a difference to the experiences of autonomy and how participants dealt with tensions. Future studies could explore this question and include analysis of professional identity tensions, status, or gender-related issues, which are also likely to be part of the autonomy–authority matrix.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author biography
Anne Kamilla Lund is a researcher in the Department of Social Science, Organization and Leadership at Nord University, Norway. Her research interests center on leadership, autonomy, authority, power, and legitimacy.
