The multiple hypotheses of this article can be summarized in the following sentence:
Subordinates with high self-esteem and an internal locus of control experience decreased motivation and increased stress when their supervisor exercises coercive, perceived, legitimate, reward, expert and referent power.
(I think this means that subordinates with high self-esteem, who like to self-determine and influence others, are often stressed and demoralized by supervisors who use coercion, rewards, status, and even professional expertise to heavily influence their subordinates.)
This made sense to me, and it happens that the kind of leadership described here as stressful and demotivating to someone like me is the very kind of leadership most often displayed and valued in my organization, and possibly in the Army (the article differentiates between high and low self esteem, and internal and external locus of control--in both cases I identify myself with the former type of subordinate). To me, it doesn't really matter that my bosses usually emerge with a high estimate of me and of my work: the angst I carry most days is not worth even the highest praise. One day, I plan to work someplace where I don't constantly have to translate myself into an adverse organizational culture. But for the meantime, I've decided to extend my active service obligation by a few years, so I need to find a way to do that with less wheel-spinning. I am trying to identify some strategies to cope successfully and not lose my mind!
I'm not sure that all workplaces are fraught with these issues, but I imagine to some extent they exist anywhere. The real meat of the article begins on p. 362, and here is an interesting clip about control in the workplace, from which I removed all the cumbersome citations for easier reading:
"People have different beliefs about the factors responsible for what happens to them. Those with an internal locus of control (internals) view what happens to them as primarily under their own control, whereas those with an external locus of control (externals) view what happens to them as determined by factors outside themselves and beyond their control. ... internals are more likely than externals to be in managerial positions and to try to influence the behavior of others. In contrast, externals are more likely to accept attempts by others to influence them, and respond more positively to directive leadership style. Further, internals are more likely to take actions to cope with stress, whereas externals are more likely to endure rather than to act. Overall, internals tend to have a higher desire than externals for personal control in the workplace.
Given these differences between internals and externals, it is hypothesized that internals are generally less receptive to supervisor power than externals, especially to supervisor reward, coercive, legitimate, and referent power. Not only do internals have a tendency to obtain and exert personal control, but they also tend to resist attempts by others to influence them. Therefore, internals might need less supervision from their supervisors than externals and may even perceive the exercising of supervisory power as unnecessary and unwanted, which could lower their motivation and increase stress levels. It can be argued, however, that internals would be more receptive to the supervisor's expert power than externals. Given internals' tendency to perceive situations as controllable and their preference for taking constructive actions to resolve problems in the workplace, they are more likely to appreciate and make use of their supervisors' professional knowledge and expertise to solve problems and improve performance. As a result, internals are likely to react positively to high expert power of the supervisor, especially given their relatively stronger belief that good performance will lead to rewards."
A very interesting dichotomy, to say the least.
References
A. R. Elangovan, Jia Lin Xie. Effects of Perceived Power of Supervisor on Subordinate Stress and Motivation: The Moderating Role of Subordinate Characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 3 (May, 1999), pp. 359-373