The Control Myth

Control is a very much misunderstood concept. The bottom line is this:
Self control is a good thing, an essential thing. Attempts to control others are doomed and will be harmful to all concerned.

This is difficult to write and it is difficult to publish in a public forum. I know it will be resisted and may stimulate reactions from others that will not be beneficial to me. I have made a conscious decision (self-control) and hereby renounce any expectation with respect to responses, reactions, and results.

I retain my hope that the statement may create thought processes that lead others to alter the ways in which they interract with their world.

The conscious reader may note that my statements regarding control are framed relative to people. Control of inanimate objects and such abstraction as process is not only good, it is mandatory. Please note, however, that control of (for example) a process is not the same as control of the people involved in it.

You may have heard of Total Quality Control (TQC) or Statistical Process Control (SPC) and the need to have and use controlled process in order to insure high quality production. A study of these methods has led me to a new understanding of control.

When we think of control we typically associate notions of power. I control something when I can make it bend to my will. A manager is said to control an organization or function. A driver may be fined for failure to have control over their vehicle. This is one of the reasons why TQC and SPC have such a diffcult time gaining traction in the business world in the U.S. (the environment with which I am most familiar). The control that is the core of Quality methods has nothing whatsoever to do with my or anyone else's will. If anything we need to look at it from the opposite direction.

A process is either functioning within understood parameters (in control) or it is not. If it is not, we say it is out of control. What we mean is that we have just discovered that we don't understand the parameters as well as we thought we did. Now we can assert our will to change the process so that the new (improved) understanding becomes part of it. It is potentially life changing to realize that the process is literally in control--that it, is has the control. The evidence is that it produces what it produces. If we desire to change what is produced, we must listen to the process, understand its needs, and give it what it needs.

To take a giant step that may require backfill later, if I have a need to control something, the variability or consistency of output for example, I must give up control to the process. If I have a need to control the people, I must give control to them as keepers of the process. They have a far better ear for what the process is asking for and can give it what it needs. When they can't give it what it needs, they will come to me and tell me what I must do.

To have control, I must give up control.

Life is a process.

Managing Technology and People

The thing about management is that it works great for money, time or countable things, but management of complex, uncountable things is at best a dream. You say "people are countable" and I'll agree, but only to the extent that the management is about bodies (head count).

Technology and its applications are so complex as to be unmanageable. Edsger Dijkstra spent much of his career trying to get that message across to the business world and the budding computer industry. Today, he is remembered more for optimized search algorithms. If that isn't the industry in a nutshell...

Many years ago I tried to tell people that technology must be controlled, not managed. My slogan was "control technology or it will control you." We are so in love with the notion of management and have so much antipathy for control, that this message, like Dijkstra's, falls on deaf ears. I am not, in any way, comparing myself to Dijkstra. I am comparing his "audience" to mine. Today, the tag line on my web site (www.m2dxtx.com) is "Leadership for change, Management for effectiveness, Governance for stability." The three are not mutually exclusive but the probability of finding all three in one person is quite small.

Control is not a bad thing--it is an essential thing. Automobile travel without control would involve so much risk that no reasonable person would attempt it. The control starts with the design and production of the machinery itself. An automobile is designed to be controlled. It is also designed to function within a larger system of controls. Awareness of this allows the designers to prioritize their efforts and focus on differentiators suggested by the system rather than on mere "performance" factors. For example, it would be a waste of time designing a vehicle for mass production that could negotiate a 90-degree turn at 80 mph. The system of controls insures that this level of performance is unnecessary.

Use of technology without controls is also fraught with risk. We require control over the design and production of technology to insure that the product is useful and usable within the larger control framework that is our business context. Control over the use of technology is needed to insure reliability and safety for all just as our traffic laws and their enforcement produce a sense of safety and predictability for those of us on public roads.

Because no one likes the idea of control, we are calling this "governance" but make no mistake, governance must be about controls or any effort is wasted. People want and need consistency. Consistency produces contentment and the role of government, according to SunTzu (The Art of War) is a contented populace.

So, if by management, you mean counting (or accounting), you won't have success applying it to personalities or to technology. If, by management, you mean coercion, you can, for a brief time, deliver the appearance of consistency and contentment with personalities or technology, but you will only be masking a growing problem. If, by management, you mean a system of controls (governance) that produces consistency, predictability and reduced risk, only then will you be able to say that your technology (and your people) are being managed.

Fortunately, the controls necessary for effective implementation and application of technology are well understood (if largely ignored). The Software Engineering Institute's CMMI and ITIL are but two specifications for a system of controls. These are thorough and consistent and understanding them will enable you to create a system tailored to your organizational needs.
The future starts when "control" is accepted and welcomed.

Governance and Control

There seems to be some confusion in data governance circles concerning the application of governance--how to make it work. I sat through a tutorial at a recent conference in which the expert emphasized the need for authority as the key (or a key) to successful governance.


It was never clear to me what the scope of this authority was to be or how it was to be used. I finally asked the question, "Authority for what?" You may have heard that responsibility without authority is the recipe for stress and burnout. I thought to pursue this line of thinking as a way to discover what was meant by data governance. If I know the nature of the authority, I should be able to deduce the nature of the responsibility. The question never received an answer. What I got was blank looks.


I felt a strong need to get to the bottom of this since the word "enforce" or "enforcement" was also used several times. I was becoming extremely uncomfortable.


Friends, if people do not accept governance and cooperate with it, then the governance model needs to change. We do not need enforcers. We need arbiters, mediators and facilitators. More than anything else we need teachers. I've heard it said that we all do the best we know how and when we know better, we'll do better.


Controls and attempts to control do not work in governance. They only create bottlenecks and delays that encourage people to find other ways. In our local civil government, we call it red tape and bureaucracy. For example, building permits are required for many home improvements. The reasons for this requirement are excellent. The permit and the resulting inspections (audits) protect the current and future homeowner by insuring that the project is safe. In spite of the obvious benefits, many do-it-yourself homeowners avoid the permit process because the process is obscure, the standards must be discovered, it can be inconvenient, it adds to the cost and is known to produce delays. Furthermore, the only way for the scofflaw to be caught is through an inspection and the authority has no reason to inspect other than the permit. Note that contractors licensed by the authority are much more likely to comply.

Contrast this to the governance of traffic on roadways. Standards are clearly displayed, drivers must pass a licensing test demonstrating both physical capacity and knowledge. Law Enforcement (To Serve and Protect) is primarily tasked with monitoring compliance (which their mere presence guarantees). Compliance metrics are gathered via various kinds of technology and governance changes (to speed limits, traffic signals, etc.) are made based on these audits. What if we had a committee at each intersection with the sole authority to direct traffic?

As you can see, governance requires an initial framework (competence, licensure), a coherent set of standards (coherent in the sense of both understandable and integrated), and monitoring/audit capabilities. Anything else is extra and may even get in the way.

The result of good governance is a community that enjoys consistency, predictability and safety and is mostly free from nasty surprises. The authority that is present is passive and present only to deal with issues that don't fit within the governance structure. If authority is needed everywhere, there is no governance anywhere.

Keeping Your Own Counsel

"The man who says what he thinks is finished, and the man who thinks what he says is an idiot."
Rolf Hochhuth

What do you think of this sentiment? Would it help to know more about Herr Hochhuth?

I believe that a significant portion of humanity operates as though these two statements were true. I'm sure there are many reasons for this, but the root of all the reasons is fear. Fear is such a powerful emotion in us that many can't even acknowledge it--even to themselves. The result is that it transforms and appears (I like the word manifests) as another emotion altogether.

Earlier I posted regarding controlling personalities and said that insecurity and low self-worth, two manifestations of fear, were at the root of the need for control. When I saw this quote on MSN today, I immediately went back to the control issue. These two statements nullify everything we teach about collaboration and teamwork. If they ring true to you, may I suggest that you ask yourself why.

This isn't a casual investigation. You're not going to be truthful with yourself at first. You'll have to do the kaizen "seven whys" and do the seven whys repeatedly because, if you hope to help yourself and are attempting to be honest with yourself, you will get different answers each time you get to the seventh why. One day you will name a specific thing that is the cause of your fear and you will feel good because knowing is better than not knowing. But this is just the first plateau.

Now you have to ask why this particular thing is producing fear in you.

Each time you reach a new plateau, you will look around and see your world differently.

Do you recognize in yourself the need for control? Do you share your vision, plans, objectives freely and listen to the responses? Do you say what you believe and believe what you say?

How can your company, organization, team function productively if you answered no to any of these questions?