Employee autonomy as a global trend and resource in the Industry 5.0 paradigm
-
Author(s)Leonid MelnykLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7824-0678
,
Lyudmila KalinichenkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9847-8448
,
Oleksandr KubatkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6396-5772
,
Yuliia RozghonLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7531-2649
,
Yuliia ZavdovievaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2169-4787
-
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.21511/gg.07(1).2026.03
-
Article InfoVolume 7 2026, Issue #1, pp. 27-43
- 6 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
The relevance of the study stems from the transformation of modern work models from the technologically oriented Industry 4.0 paradigm to the human-centric Industry 5.0, where employee autonomy is emerging and becoming established as a global trend. The paper aims to conceptualize employee autonomy as an economic resource by optimizing work–life balance and assessing its impact on productivity and population well-being. For the analysis, panel data were collected for 123 countries over the period 2005–2023. The methodological basis of the study is the Levin–Lin–Chu unit root test, the Breusch–Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test, the Hausman specification test, and GLS regression estimation. The study found that, on average, in the group of accessible countries, each additional 100 hours worked per year reduces labor productivity by USD 2 per hour. An increase of one hour in the working year reduces GDP per capita by USD 28.48 per person.
Furthermore, a one percent increase in the length of the working year is associated with a 2.71 percent drop in GDP per capita per hour. Thus, productivity in the Industry 5.0 paradigm at the global level is predominantly qualitative and is shaped by focus, intrinsic motivation, and decentralized decision-making, rather than by increasing working hours. It is concluded that worker autonomy is an economically significant factor in enhancing productivity, innovation potential, and contributing to the geopolitical and geoeconomic sustainability of societies in the era of globalization.
Acknowledgments
The paper is prepared within the scientific research projects “Digital transformations to ensure civil protection and post-war economic recovery in the face of environmental and social challenges” (No. 0124U000549) and “Fundamental grounds for Ukraine’s transition to a digital economy based on the implementation of Industries 3.0; 4.0; 5.0” (No. 0124U000576).
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)J24, J81, M12, O33
-
References54
-
Tables6
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual transition from technology-centric to human-centric work systems
- Figure 2. Conceptual logic of the 100-80-100 model: Autonomy as a compensatory mechanism for reduced working hours
- Figure 3. Distribution of companies by industry that have implemented a 4-day work week
-
- Table 1. Dimensions of autonomy as an economic resource in Industry 5.0
- Table 2. Mechanisms through which autonomy affects productivity and innovation
- Table 3. Autonomy-based work models in the transition to Industry 5.0
- Table 4. Assessment of the impact of working hours on labor productivity (GDP per capita per hour worked) in a group of 123 countries for 2005–2023
- Table 5. Assessment of the impact of working hours on labor productivity (GDP per capita per hour worked) in a group of 123 countries for 2005–2023
- Table 6. Countries’ experience in implementing a 4-day workweek
-
- 4 Day Week Global. (2025). Redesign How Your Business Works With 4 Day Week Global.
- Abrams, Z. (2025). The rise of the 4-day workweek. Monitor on Psychology, 56(1).
- Adel, A. (2022). Future of industry 5.0 in society: Human-centric solutions, challenges and prospective research areas. Journal of Cloud Computing, 11(1), Article 40.
- Ahart, J., & Nature Magazine. (2025, July 22). The biggest trial yet confirms four-day workweek makes employees happier. The Scientific American.
- Allas, T., Maksimainen, J., Manyika, J., & Singh, N. (2020). An experiment to inform universal basic income. McKinsey & Company.
- Ariani, D. W. (2025). Examining the impact of job crafting, work–life balance, and procrastination on performance enhancement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(1), 482-495.
- Baskin, K. (2023, July 31). How to implement a 4-day workweek for the whole organisation. MIT Sloan.
- Beard, G. (2024, October 29). In this European country, the four-day work week has been a huge success. Time Out Worldwide.
- Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
- Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organisations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43.
- Dobrovolska, O., Ortmanns, W., Podosynnikov, S., Halynskyi, D., & Miniailo, A. (2024). Start-ups and entrepreneurship in renewable energy: Investments and risks. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 8(2), 213-240.
- Eke, H. (2026). Psychological safety of nonprofit executives: Attributional insights into the human burden of mission-driven leadership, work-life balance, stress, and burnout. Safety and Security Advances, 2(1), 53-62.
- European Commission (EC). (2021). Industry 5.0 – Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. Brussels: European Commission.
- Evans, J., & Kasztelnik, K. (2025). The moderating role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening the link between organisational commitment and employee outcomes. Business Ethics and Leadership, 9(3), 145-179.
- Gamberini, L., & Pluchino, P. (2024). Industry 5.0: A comprehensive insight into the future of work, social sustainability, sustainable development, and career. Australian Journal of Career Development, 33(1), 5-14.
- George, B., & Mattathil, A. P. (2025). Vulnerability: Validation, appreciation, and reciprocation in business, personal, and health contexts. Health Economics and Management Review, 6(1), 57-71.
- Griep, Y., Obenauer, W. G., & Knol, W. (2025). The cost of cutting hours: How government regulation can stifle productivity and competitiveness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 80-83.
- Grytten, O. H. (2025). The role of productivity and the relative stagnation of the Philippines since the mid-twentieth century. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 22(4), 13-29.
- Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.
- Jamunarani, H. S., & Syed, R. (2025). Flexible work arrangements and their impact on women’s job satisfaction and quality of life: The mediating role of work–life balance. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(3), 130-144.
- Kalleberg, A. L., & Dunn, M. (2016). Good jobs, bad jobs in the gig economy. Perspectives on Work, 20, 10-14.
- Kuzior, A., Koibichuk, V., Drozd, S., Grytsyshen, D., & Vasylieva, T. (2023). Determinants of labor productivity in the USA. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 21(4), 724-739.
- Kuzior, A., Samoilikova, A., Valúch, M., & Bácsné Bába, E. (2024). Impact of university-industry R&D collaboration on innovation transfer and startup performance. Journal of International Studies, 17(3), 164-181.
- Kytsak, T., & Ovsiannykov, D. (2025). Working hours of the future: AI technologies, collective synergy, and biorhythms as the foundation for productive work. Social and Labour Relations: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 1-10.
- Lewis, K., Stronge, W., Kellam, J., Kikuchi, L., Schor, J., Fan, W., Kelly, O., Gu, G., Frayne, D., Burchell, B., Hubbard, N.B., White, J., Kamarāde, D., & Mullens, F. (2023). The results are in: The UK's four-day week pilot. Autonomy.
- Mamdouh, A., Adel, R., Khourshed, N., & Ragheb, M. A. (2025). Impact of digital leadership on employee performance with mediation roles of digital self-efficacy and employee motivation. Business Ethics and Leadership, 9(3), 109-129.
- McAnally, K., & Hagger, M. S. (2024). Self-determination theory and workplace outcomes: A conceptual review and future research directions. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), Article 428.
- Melnyk, L., Remsei, S., Kubatko, O., & Kalinichenko, L. (2025). Industry 5.0 as a human-centric direction for social and labor entities transformations. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(4), 290-300.
- Mujtaba, B. G. (2025). Workplace well-being and health in a fast-paced era: How education, experience, and mindfulness shape stress management. Health Economics and Management Review, 6(2), 108-119.
- Nie, T., Tian, M., Cai, M., & Yan, Q. (2023). Job autonomy and work meaning: Drivers of employee job-crafting behaviors in the VUCA times. Behavioral Sciences, 13(6), Article 493.
- Nocchi, M. (2025). The four-day workweek: Lessons from Belgium and Icelandic models. IRIS.
- Onopriienko, K., Lovciová, K., Mateášová, M., Kuznyetsova, A., & Vasylieva, T. (2023). Economic policy to support lifelong learning system development and SDG 4 achievement: Bibliometric analysis. Knowledge and Performance Management, 7(1), 15-28.
- Pierce, J. L., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338.
- Purnomo, J., Wening, N., & Sujoko, S. (2025). Literature review on the 4 days work week (4DWW) system to improve worker productivity and well-being. Electronic Journal of Education, Social Economics and Technology (eJESET), 6(1), 394-399.
- Putri, F. M. R. S. (2025, March 24). Work less, do more: Countries embracing the 4-day work week. Tempo.
- Quisenberry, W., & Burrell, D. N. (2026). Virtual teamwork through the lens of sustainable development: implications for environmental footprint, social resilience, and organizational agility. Green Transition and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 18-39.
- Rahimi, R. A. (2025). German experiment gave people a basic monthly income. The effect on their work ethic was surprising. CNN.
- Reissová, A., Šimsová, J., & Nacházelová, E. (2024). Family or career? Intergenerational differences in values. Economics and Sociology, 17(3), 103-118.
- Rigó, R., Grenčíková, A., & Španková, J. (2025). Impact of intelligent industry on labor productivity under the conditions of population aging: The case of Slovakia. Journal of International Studies, 18(1), 297-307.
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
- Ryan, R. M., Duineveld, J. J., Di Domenico, S. I., Ryan, W. S., Steward, B. A., & Bradshaw, E. L. (2022). We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: A meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory. Psychological Bulletin, 148(11-12), 813-842.
- Saha, M., & Mitra, S. (2025). Addressing socio-economic challenges through usage of social commerce in business: A social network theory and TAM model perspectives for self-help groups. SocioEconomic Challenges, 9(2), 220-235.
- Samuel, S. (2020, October 20). Everywhere basic income has been tried in one map. Vox. Future Perfect.
- Sarwar, S., Gowindasamy, M., Ashraf, S., & Kashif, I. (2026). Remote work challenges in the knowledge economy: The mediating role of family motivation in well-being and leadership trust dynamics. Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning, 2(1), 34-47.
- Shin, I., & Park, S. (2024). Do labor unions enhance corporate social performance? Evidence from Korean financial markets. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 21(1), 289-301.
- Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press.
- Troisi, O., Visvizi, A., & Grimaldi, M. (2024). Rethinking innovation through industry and society 5.0 paradigms: A multileveled approach for management and policy-making. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(9), 22-51.
- Vasylieva, T., Witczak-Smolnik, W., Tiutiunyk, I., & Filep, B. (2023). Social and economic determinants of quality of life: Case of European countries. Economics and Sociology, 16(4), 289-308.
- World Economic Forum. (2025). Navigating work transformation in Japan.
- Yarovenko, H., Kuzior, A., Norek, T., & Lopatka, A. (2024). The future of artificial intelligence: Fear, hope or indifference? Human Technology, 20(3), 611-639.
- Zahorodnia, K., Uhabakin, O., Titov, E., & Tverdovska, Z. (2026). Inclusive employment as a factor of social security: Enterprise readiness to employ persons with disabilities in Ülemiste City, Estonia. Safety and Security Advances, 2(1), 81-107.
- Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2017). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
- Zolg, S., & Herbig, B. (2023). Autonomy in the context of cognitive demands – Is the resource becoming a stressor? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 96, 685-714.
-
Non-financial factors affecting the operational performance of hospitality companies: Evidence from Vietnam
Trung Kien Phan ,
Thi Hong Thuy Nguyen ,
Thu Ha Dang ,
Van Thuan Tran ,
Kim Ngoc Le
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(4).2021.05
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 19, 2021 Issue #4 pp. 48-62 Views: 11018 Downloads: 1925 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯNon-financial factors including quality of services, the flexibility of a company, utilization of resources, and market orientation are regarded as significant determinants that enhance the profitability-based performance of a service company or a hotel. The study investigated the interaction between these factors and hotel operating performance measured by the hospitality performance and results indicators. Data on 346 executives of Vietnam’s hospitality companies were collected. A structural equation modeling (SEM) method was utilized to examine the positive-direct and moderating effects of non-financial factors on hotel performance in terms of occupancy rate (OCR), average daily rate (ADR), and the revenue per available room (RevPAR). The findings showed that service quality ( = 0.118, p < 0.05), flexibility ( = 0.173, p < 0.05) and resource utilization (= 0.172, p < 0.05) positively affected the performance of Vietnam’s hospitality companies. Meanwhile, innovation showed no direct influence (p = 0.068) but an indirect impact on the performance through service quality ( = 0.311, p < 0.05). Market orientation did not impact the performance (p = 0.076) but it positively affected both innovation ( = 0.322, p < 0.05) and service quality ( = 0.146, p < 0.05). The study contributed to a theoretical enhancement of the current level of knowledge on the factors that affect the performance and developed a reliable scale for measuring the performance of hotels in Vietnam.
-
Exploring fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) small, medium and micro enterprises manufacturers’ need for innovation to achieve growth
Lawrence Mpele Lekhanya ,
Nze Grace Olajumoke ,
Dorasamy Nirmala
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.08(2).2017.01
Environmental Economics Volume 8, 2017 Issue #2 pp. 8-16 Views: 7654 Downloads: 1755 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the problems of the sustainable development, to explore the level of innovation in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) manufacturing SMMEs sectors, which most affects on the state of the environment, to identify the causes of low innovation in the industry and to examine these factors influence on the effectiveness of SMMEs manufacturers innovation strategies, as well as to invent a new innovation strategic approach to overcome innovation problems in the economic growth of fast moving consumer goods SMMEs manufacturers. The study is aimed to determine the level of innovation and factors contributing to low innovation in fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) SMMEs manufacturers, which hinder their economic performance. Mixed approach of quantitative and qualitative questionnaire is used for primary data collection. Sample consists of 120 SMMEs. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (23.0) was employed for data analysis. The study results are presented with figures and diagrams. This study will be a useful tool for general public and relevant stakeholders in this sector.
-
The impact of inclusive leadership behaviors on innovative workplace behavior with an emphasis on the mediating role of work engagement
Dheyaa Falih Bannay ,
Mohammed Jabbar Hadi ,
Ahmed Abdullah Amanah
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.39
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020 Issue #3 pp. 479-491 Views: 4852 Downloads: 1524 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯWork creativity manifested in innovative workplace behavior (IWB) and employee work engagement is fundamental to maintaining firm’s sustainability and competitiveness. In this regard, this study investigates the supporting effect of innovative leadership on IWB and employee engagement by maximizing employee vigor, dedication, and absorption. The study data were collected using a questionnaire-based technique, and the questionnaires were administered to 150 respondents working in mobile phone companies in Southern and Central Iraq. The results were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and SmartPLS software. The study results revealed that inclusive leadership and work engagement were significantly related to IWB, and work engagement played a mediating role between inclusive leadership and IWB. The findings further indicated that inclusive leadership behaviors such as openness, accessibility, and availability motivated the subordinates to be engaged in IWB. To promote IWB, company leaders need to effectively engage their followers by taking pride and satisfaction in employee output, which might help employee work engagement and IWB.
