Controlling is one of the more misunderstood terms in our organizational language. When we use the word control in everyday conversation, we often mean something entirely different from what we mean when we talk about the controlling function of management. If I tell you that somebody is a “control freak,” you probably have a pretty good picture in your mind of what that person is like. They want to know what everybody is doing, they want to tell everybody how to do it, they want to approve everything, and they have their thumb on the jugular vein of everyone around them. That’s not what I mean by controlling.
The word itself has a much more interesting history. Our modern concept of control comes through an old Latin term, contrarotulus, which referred to a duplicate register or counter-roll. The idea was that you had one record and another record that you could check against it. Control, in that original sense, was about comparison. You weren’t controlling another person. You were checking one record against another to see whether they agreed.
I think that’s a remarkably useful definition for understanding what controlling is supposed to mean in an organization.
When we talk about the four basic functions of management, we have planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Planning is about deciding what we intend to accomplish. Organizing is about putting the resources and structure in place to accomplish it. Leading is about engaging the people who are going to do the work. And controlling is about coming back later and asking a very simple question: How did reality compare with what we planned?
Controlling is about knowing the destination well enough to recognize when you’re on a proper course or no longer moving toward it.
That’s a very different thing from trying to control people.
If you’ve read anything about the Karpman Drama Triangle, you’ve probably encountered the three roles of Persecutor, Victim, and Rescuer. One of the interesting things that happens in organizations is that the person who is attempting to hold somebody accountable can sometimes get cast in the role of the Persecutor, while the person who doesn’t want to be held accountable assumes the role of the Victim. Suddenly, the supervisor who says, “We agreed that you were going to do this,” becomes a “control freak.”
Now, let’s be clear. There are people who are genuinely domineering. There are supervisors who micromanage, intimidate, manipulate, and interfere with everything their employees do. That’s not effective management, and calling that behavior controlling is perfectly understandable. But we need to distinguish that behavior from the legitimate management function of controlling.
Otherwise, we get ourselves into a strange situation where simply asking somebody whether they did what they agreed to do becomes an act of oppression.
Let’s make this really simple. You and I work together. I’m your supervisor, and you are a member of my team. We sit down and talk about what needs to be accomplished during the next 90 days. We agree on some objectives. We talk about what resources you have available. We clarify what success is supposed to look like, and you develop a plan for getting there. We review the plan together, we agree that it’s reasonable, and I approve it.
Then you go away and do the work.
I don’t need to follow you around every day asking what you’re doing. I don’t need to tell you how to accomplish every part of the plan. I don’t need to stand over your shoulder. I’ve given you responsibility, and you’ve accepted it.
At the end of the 90 days, however, we sit down again and look at what happened. I might say, “Steve, let’s look at the plan. Did you do what you said you were going to do? Did you accomplish everything you intended to accomplish? Did you do less than you said you would do, or did you actually accomplish more than you expected?”
Now we have something useful to talk about.
Maybe you accomplished everything. Great. Let’s look at what worked and figure out how we can continue doing it. Maybe you accomplished only half of what you planned. Okay. Why? Was the plan unrealistic? Did you have the resources you needed? Did something unexpected happen? Did you fail to follow through? Did priorities change? Maybe you accomplished considerably more than you planned. That’s useful information, too.
The point is that we aren’t sitting down to find somebody to blame. We’re comparing actual behavior and actual results with planned behavior and planned results.
That’s controlling.
And that is why I believe a properly conducted performance evaluation is nothing more than a little joint planning exercise between a supervisor and a team member. Unfortunately, we’ve turned performance evaluations into something much more complicated and threatening than they need to be. We have supervisors sitting down once a year and trying to remember everything an employee did during the previous twelve months, and employees sitting across the desk wondering what they’re going to get criticized for this time.
That’s not what the process should be.
The process should have started months earlier when we sat down together and agreed on what we were going to accomplish. Then, when we meet at the end of the week, month, quarter, or year, we’re simply checking the results against the plan.
What did we say we were going to do?
What did we actually do?
How close did we get?
What got in the way?
What did we learn?
What should we change?
That’s management.
I think this is also where the distinction between accountability and micromanagement becomes important. Accountability doesn’t require me to watch you every minute. In fact, if I have to watch you every minute, I probably haven’t created much accountability. I’ve created surveillance.
If we have agreed on the result, and I’ve given you reasonable latitude to determine how you’re going to achieve that result, then my job is to come back at an agreed-upon point in time and see what happened. That’s accountability.
If, on the other hand, I tell you exactly what to do, exactly how to do it, exactly when to do it, exactly which tools to use, exactly who to talk to, and then repeatedly interrupt you to make sure you’re doing it my way, that’s something else. That’s micromanagement. It has very little to do with the organizational meaning of controlling.
Controlling is also not about proving that the plan was right.
That’s an important distinction because sometimes the plan isn’t right. Sometimes circumstances change. Sometimes we discover that our assumptions were wrong. Sometimes we discover that the resources weren’t available. Sometimes something happens that nobody could reasonably have anticipated. And sometimes the person doing the work discovers a better way to accomplish the objective.
That’s why controlling is really a learning function.
We establish a plan based upon what we know today. We go do the work. Then we compare what actually happened with what we thought was going to happen. The difference between the two gives us information, and that information allows us to modify the plan.
In that sense, controlling is what closes the management loop.
We plan, we organize, we lead, we control, and then we plan again.
That’s why I don’t have any problem with an organization asking me at the end of the quarter, “Did we accomplish what we said we were going to accomplish?” In fact, I’d be concerned about an organization that didn’t ask that question.
If we established an objective to increase revenue by a certain amount, we ought to look at the actual revenue and see how close we came. If we established an objective to reduce response time, we ought to look at the actual response time. If we said we were going to complete a project by a certain date, we ought to look at whether we completed it. If we didn’t, we need to understand why.
That doesn’t automatically mean somebody failed.
It means something happened that we need to understand.
Sometimes the problem is execution. Sometimes the problem is the plan. Sometimes the problem is the circumstances in which we were operating. Sometimes the objective itself needs to be reconsidered. The controlling function gives us the opportunity to figure that out instead of simply moving on to the next crisis.
That’s why I think we need to reclaim the word control in organizational life.
Control doesn’t mean that I get to tell you what to do every minute of every day. It doesn’t mean that I get to impose my will on you. It doesn’t mean that I need to have my fingers in every decision you make.
It means that we made a plan, we agreed on the plan, you went away and did the work, and then we came back together and checked the results against what we said we were going to accomplish.
That’s not dysfunctional behavior.
That’s purposeful adult behavior.
Purposeful adults make commitments. They establish plans. They do what they say they’re going to do, and they are willing to look honestly at the results afterward. If they accomplished less than they intended, they figure out why. If they accomplished what they intended, they figure out what worked. If they accomplished more than they expected, they pay attention to that, too.
Organizations need to do exactly the same thing.
So when I use the word controlling, I’m not talking about controlling people. I’m talking about checking reality against the plan.
We said we were going to do something.
We went out and did it.
Now let’s sit down and see how we did.
Then let’s modify the plan and continue moving forward.
That’s what controlling is supposed to be.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Use this form to be notified about new articles as I publish them!
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
