Hybrid work is widely promoted as enhancing autonomy and well-being, yet empirical evidence remains contradictory. This chapter argues that these divergent findings reflect a fundamental misunderstanding: autonomy in hybrid work is not a uniform resource but a structurally differentiated configuration, socially enacted, and unequally distributed. First, autonomy comprises four distinct dimensions (temporal, locational, method, and task-sequencing control), each affecting well-being through different pathways. These dimensions interact rather than accumulate: some combinations enhance outcomes, while contradictory configurations generate strain even when formal discretion exists. Second, formal autonomy does not guarantee genuine control. Normative expectations about availability, social negotiations within interdependent teams, and technological infrastructures that encode visibility shape whether discretion translates into meaningful choice. These mechanisms can enable coordination but also transmit pressure and restrict freedom. Third, access to autonomy is stratified. Higher-skilled workers secure reinforcing configurations across multiple dimensions, while others face tighter monitoring and fewer opportunities to shape their working conditions. Hybrid work thus risks reproducing rather than reducing existing inequalities. Drawing on job design theory, sociology of work, and science and technology studies, the chapter develops an integrated framework that explains why hybrid-work policies framed as autonomy-enhancing often provide symbolic rather than substantive freedom. It outlines research priorities for empirically mapping autonomy configurations, tracing how they are enacted in different organizational settings, and examining how hybrid arrangements reproduce workplace inequalities. In practical terms, achieving sustainable autonomy requires more than granting formal discretion; organizational cultures, coordination practices, and digital infrastructures must actively enable rather than erode control. Autonomy in hybrid work remains a contested resource whose effects depend on how it is configured, enacted, and distributed.