Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this isn't particularly a novel theme. We encounter controlling people in all facets of our life, and you see it discussed a lot with regards to romantic relationships. What I'm curious about is the need to control others over things that don't particularly or directly impact the controlling person. For instance, I see a lot of discussion on the Work & Employment forum about WFH scenarios. Some people seemed extremely peeved at the idea that other people are getting an extra benefit and convenience from their employers to work from home. In turn, they introduce these ideas or scenarios that put the company--or themselves by way of the company--back in the driver seat. One example I've seen proposed is for companies having control over the layout of your workspace at home.
Now, the idea of WFH to me has always been one that heavily relies on earned trust between the employee and employer. If you're getting your work done and you demonstrate this to your manager, they trust you with owning and managing this benefit. But for these controlling personality types, that's not enough. They want direct oversight over workspaces, whether you can have pets or children in the house while working, what type of monitors you're using, etc.
At the end of the day, trust is not enough for these people. They seem to want direct oversight and authority over your life and happiness. It almost seems like they are hot and bothered by the notion that you're getting something extra that is of any benefit to you.
What I don't understand is the 'why' behind this. If you can simply prove that you can accomplish your job in the setting of your choice, why the need for all these other controlled parameters? I understand some aspects such as working on a secure VPN or a private space when dealing with sensitive data. But these controls they propose tend to not have anything to do with that at all. It seems to have more to do with controlling the person and making sure they don't get too much freedom or happiness or convenience out of it.
I know this isn't particularly a novel theme. We encounter controlling people in all facets of our life, and you see it discussed a lot with regards to romantic relationships. What I'm curious about is the need to control others over things that don't particularly or directly impact the controlling person. For instance, I see a lot of discussion on the Work & Employment forum about WFH scenarios. Some people seemed extremely peeved at the idea that other people are getting an extra benefit and convenience from their employers to work from home. In turn, they introduce these ideas or scenarios that put the company--or themselves by way of the company--back in the driver seat. One example I've seen proposed is for companies having control over the layout of your workspace at home.
Now, the idea of WFH to me has always been one that heavily relies on earned trust between the employee and employer. If you're getting your work done and you demonstrate this to your manager, they trust you with owning and managing this benefit. But for these controlling personality types, that's not enough. They want direct oversight over workspaces, whether you can have pets or children in the house while working, what type of monitors you're using, etc.
At the end of the day, trust is not enough for these people. They seem to want direct oversight and authority over your life and happiness. It almost seems like they are hot and bothered by the notion that you're getting something extra that is of any benefit to you.
What I don't understand is the 'why' behind this. If you can simply prove that you can accomplish your job in the setting of your choice, why the need for all these other controlled parameters? I understand some aspects such as working on a secure VPN or a private space when dealing with sensitive data. But these controls they propose tend to not have anything to do with that at all. It seems to have more to do with controlling the person and making sure they don't get too much freedom or happiness or convenience out of it.
I've felt for a long time that controllers are compensating for their personal insecurity. If for whatever reason they can't reach some degree of internal security they try the next best thing...control situations around themselves over which they have any power. It includes micromanaging the actions and results achieved by others. Ever noticed how confident people seem easy-going, flexible, not hung up on detail? They don't attempt to control much because they don't feel the need...they either don't care enough to worry or know they will be able to roll with whatever comes down the road at them because of that confidence. What other absent workers might or might not do aren't a threat.
Last edited by Parnassia; 01-12-2022 at 06:07 PM..
There are also people who don't believe that anyone does anything good or can be counted on to behave ethically, unless motivated by threat or fear or punishment.
Some are the types who also believe that if it weren't for religion, people would just run about murdering and stealing and pillaging at will. When in fact, I've known some seriously ethical atheists. In fact I would say that I trust someone whose rationale is, "I understand that this is the right thing to do, for reasons that make sense to me, so I consent to abide by this social contract and follow this rule" far more than the one who begrudgingly obeys out of fear of an authority figure, even if that authority is omniscient, but then...I've never been very motivated by fear of punishment.
So I'm saying it could be a question of which they believe to be more effective in motivating desired behavior...positive, or negative reinforcement.
What I don't understand is the 'why' behind this. If you can simply prove that you can accomplish your job in the setting of your choice, why the need for all these other controlled parameters? I understand some aspects such as working on a secure VPN or a private space when dealing with sensitive data. But these controls they propose tend to not have anything to do with that at all. It seems to have more to do with controlling the person and making sure they don't get too much freedom or happiness or convenience out of it.
In my experience, the larger the corporation, the more indiscriminately risk-averse they are. Company politics means no one wants to take any risks at all, in the extreme.
I work for a large corporation (20,000 employee multinational). They bought out a much smaller competitor that I worked for. Going from a 20 person company to a 20,000 person company is night and day, I can tell you. The first thing they did is stop all product development and put us in "keep the lights on" mode. They openly stated they intended to harvest our customers and data and then shut us down. This after paying millions of $ for our technology, which is way superior to theirs. But this is a far less risky strategy for them. No one has to admit their technology is crap. No one has to bother to understand what they acquired. No one has to do anything new or uncomfortable. It is easier to just squish a small competitor than to actually compete with it or integrate it into their systems.
Paradoxically, their goal of turning off the lights within 12 months had just one eensy problem: their own lawyers had insisted on new contracts with all our major customers as due diligence for the acquisition, committing them to provide service for at least 3 years. Again ... risk averse. So ... we are funded for 3 years, and my guess is they'll bungle that and kick the can down the road a year at a time until some other bright shiny object distracts them and they forget what their plan for us was :-)
Things we used to do in a day after having a quick meeting do decide a new feature, would easily take months or years at the new company, because of all the people who have to sign off (or, just as often, urinate on) each step of the project. There were a couple of small features that would have been natural for the newly-combined companies, one took 7 months to approve 20 minutes of work, the other took 9 months to ultimately say "no" to a similar amount of work.
Working in corporate 'Murica is a nightmare, full-stop. There's a very good reason I normally confine myself to small companies (less than 100, preferably less than 50 employees). They are the only kinds of businesses in this country that are still nimble enough to find their butts with a flashlight. I'm where I am now because I got sold along with the company.
As a side note, my new corporate overlords enjoy steadily increasing stock prices, so there's no motivation for them to be better. They enjoy a quasi-monopoly in their industry and all they have to do is phone it in and do something that can be passed off as innovation once in a great while. So that's in play, in addition to risk aversion.
Also, Google "Peter Principle" for insight on how everyone in these kinds of organizations "rise to the level of their own incompetence".
Now, the idea of WFH to me has always been one that heavily relies on earned trust between the employee and employer. If you're getting your work done and you demonstrate this to your manager, they trust you with owning and managing this benefit. But for these controlling personality types, that's not enough. They want direct oversight over workspaces, whether you can have pets or children in the house while working, what type of monitors you're using, etc.
At the end of the day, trust is not enough for these people. They seem to want direct oversight and authority over your life and happiness. It almost seems like they are hot and bothered by the notion that you're getting something extra that is of any benefit to you.
What I don't understand is the 'why' behind this.
I'm still dismayed what you describe exists in the 2022 workforce. Disbelieving even, were it not for a friend who works in such a place. I call it Petty Fiefdoms. They find ways to audit what she does at home since they sent everyone there some months (or a year) ago. Cameras always on sort of thing. Sounds like a Fourth Amendment matter to me, but I didn't ask how or if that was pursued.
I'm fortunate to be in a principal/director level role where our goal is teamwork and performance. We get results and check on how we're delivering too, ensuring coms are clear and friendly. We don't always get it right (IT) but we're definitely improving. I can honestly say I haven't seen the described behavior in a professional environment in years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
