Integrating Theory into Practice

Marcus Lang’s controlling behavior in his role as CEO can be understood through several intersecting psychological theories that reveal the underlying motivations and beliefs shaping his approach. His need for control, drive for achievement, and strong internal locus of control combine to explain why he is deeply invested in overseeing every detail at Dynatech, an engineering firm where precision and quality are paramount. Examining Lang's behavior through these psychological lenses, with references to leading theorists, allows us to unpack the reasons behind his actions and consider ways he might balance his need for control with effective team collaboration.

Need for Control Theory

The Need for Control Theory suggests that individuals like Marcus derive a sense of security and psychological stability from influencing their environment. When he exercises control, Marcus feels more confident in the predictability and reliability of his work outcomes, allowing him to align results with his exacting standards. As noted by White (1959) in his work on Effectance Motivation, the desire to influence one's environment is an innate drive that provides a sense of competence and mastery over tasks. Marcus’s meticulous control over his work environment could be seen as an extension of this effectance motivation, where his high standards are not just preferences but essential to his sense of efficacy and self-worth.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Self-Determination Theory, developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), asserts that individuals are motivated by three core needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Marcus’s need for control likely reflects a strong desire for competence, as he strives to ensure that his standards are met without relying too heavily on others. SDT explains that when people’s competence is tied closely to their identity and their work, they may prioritize control as a means to maintain or enhance that competence. For Marcus, who views quality and precision as fundamental to his professional identity, control allows him to meet these standards and avoid potential risks associated with delegation. As Deci and Ryan argue, this need for competence becomes particularly pronounced in high-stakes environments where personal performance is under scrutiny.

Locus of Control Theory

Locus of Control Theory, introduced by Julian Rotter (1966), divides individuals into those with an internal locus of control—who believe outcomes are a direct result of their actions—and those with an external locus of control—who attribute outcomes to external factors. Marcus’s behavior demonstrates a pronounced internal locus of control, where he feels personally responsible for the quality of work produced under his leadership. He believes that his active involvement is critical to success, as he sees external influences as unreliable or prone to error. This internal locus of control makes him wary of delegating tasks, as he feels that outcomes could suffer without his direct influence. Rotter’s work shows that such individuals often take on more responsibility than necessary, feeling that they are the sole architects of success or failure in their professional sphere.

Attachment Theory and Workplace Behavior

While Attachment Theory is often applied to personal relationships, psychologists like Mary Ainsworth (1989) have extended it to explain behavior in professional settings. Attachment Theory posits that people with an anxious attachment style may exhibit controlling behavior in the workplace to avoid perceived threats to stability or security. For Marcus, the engineering world’s high precision demands might heighten a subconscious fear of failure or loss of control, leading to his need to closely monitor and manage his team’s activities. Ainsworth’s research shows that people with anxious attachment often seek control to counteract a perceived lack of trust in others, which aligns with Marcus’s reluctance to delegate.

Achievement Motivation Theory

Achievement Motivation Theory, introduced by David McClelland (1961), suggests that individuals with a high need for achievement are driven to succeed by their standards of excellence, often linking performance directly to their self-worth. Marcus’s desire for control over his team’s output aligns with McClelland’s concept of a high achiever, as he sees his oversight as essential to the firm’s success and his own identity as a leader. McClelland noted that people high in achievement motivation prefer situations where they have autonomy, setting their own benchmarks and evaluating their work against personal criteria. Marcus’s unwillingness to delegate may reflect an internalized pressure to prove his ability, especially in an industry where perfection and reliability are essential.

Integrating Theory into Practice: Balancing Control and Delegation

Marcus Lang’s strong need for control, driven by achievement motivation and an internal locus of control, creates a rigid leadership style that can discourage collaboration and trust within his team. His coach, using insights from these theories, might suggest incremental steps for Marcus to reframe control as a shared responsibility rather than a solitary endeavor. For example, introducing regular feedback sessions could help Marcus see that his team members are competent and committed, easing his fear of loss of quality. By reframing delegation as a way to enhance—not threaten—his standards, he could gradually become more comfortable sharing responsibility.

Conclusion

Marcus Lang’s behavior illustrates a powerful mix of psychological drivers that underpin his need for control, including his desire for competence, a deep-seated internal locus of control, and a high achievement orientation. Recognizing the intersection of these theories provides a structured lens for understanding his leadership challenges and sets the stage for strategies to foster a more balanced and trust-based approach. As McClelland, Deci, and Ryan suggest, creating an environment where control is both shared and valued can benefit both Marcus and his team, ultimately strengthening the organizational culture and aligning with Dynatech’s goals for innovation and excellence.