02-10-2026
Organizations often emphasize their mission when recruiting new employees or when trying to motivate current employees. It can help create a powerful sense of purpose. But how often are employees actually able to make the impact they expect through their jobs?
A new article published in Academy of Management Journal by Daniels School of Business professor Jordan Nielsen, alongside coauthors Daniel Goering and Purdue alumnus Kinshuk Sharma (OBHR ’22), explores how many people report disappointment and frustration with the level of impact they are able to have on customers and clients, and end up blaming the organization as a result. Nielsen and colleagues call this “thwarted impact,” and their new research shines light on this critical but commonly neglected problem in organizations.
Nielsen’s team studied more than 1,000 employees from a wide variety of jobs and organizations and found that thwarted impact is not a rare complaint. Nearly half of respondents reported at least some frustration with their organization over being unable to make the impact they believed their role should allow.
The main source for thwarted impact beliefs were elements of what scholars call “coercive bureaucracy,” which entails things like rigid rules and procedures, unreasonable job demands, excessive oversight and resource constraints. Rather than supporting effective service delivery, this bad bureaucracy is actually designed primarily to control employee behavior and usually stems from managers’ distrust of their employees.
Thwarted impact does more than frustrate employees; it alters their relationship with the organization. Participants who reported high levels of thwarted impact viewed their employer as having failed to live up to implicit promises about the meaning of the work. They had expected to be making a meaningful contribution to customers, clients, patients or students. But when bad bureaucracy made that contribution unattainable, employees experienced it as a kind of moral breach.
A damaged relationship with the organization in turn led to other problems. Employees experiencing higher levels of thwarted impact were more likely to withdraw effort, and they were also less willing to speak positively about their employer to friends, family and clients. When Nielsen and his team followed up one year later, the long-term consequences became clear. Employees who had previously reported high levels of thwarted impact were almost five times more likely to have left their organization compared to those who reported low levels.
Nielsen suggests two practical steps for leaders who want to preserve employee motivation and retain purpose-driven talent.
First, organizations should conduct regular “audits” of their bureaucratic structures, pruning out coercive elements and shifting toward a more enabling form of rules and procedures. This means treating rules and procedures as tools that help employees serve clients effectively, rather than as mechanisms of control.
Second, managers should clearly explain unavoidable constraints. Resource limits, legal requirements and strategic trade-offs are realities of organizational life. Employees are far more likely to accept these limits when they understand why they exist and how they connect to the organization’s broader mission. Transparent communication reduces the tendency to blame the organization for barriers to impact.
A sense of purpose can be a powerful force for good in organizations, but only when employees are actually able to act on it. When bureaucracy blocks meaningful impact, it doesn’t just slow work down; it erodes trust, motivation and long-term commitment. Nielsen’s research shows that thwarted impact is widespread, costly and deeply tied to how employees interpret their relationship with their employer.
By reducing coercive bureaucracy and communicating constraints more transparently, leaders can help restore employees’ sense of impact, strengthen organizational loyalty and better align day-to-day work with the mission that attracted people in the first place. A sense of purpose can be a powerful force for good in organizations. Sometimes, the most effective way to lead is to simply get out of employees’ way.
