I read that Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder-president who
bought the Washington Post, according to an anonymous colleague “makes an
ordinary control freak look like a stoned out hippie.” It sounds a lot like what they said
about Steve Jobs.
Despite their success, you can sense the irritation in the
accusations. So given their
success, you have to wonder, is control a bad thing? Seems to me you have to distinguish: is it control so you
are in control for your own reasons, or is it control for the sake of the
product or service being produced?
Type I Control Freak (CF1)
The usual “control freak” in a company – or in a family for
that matter – is someone who likes to be in control for his or her personal
reasons. Sometimes it is a way to
treat anxiety – if you are in control, someone else isn’t, and you won’t be
hurt. Or it could also be someone
who is afraid of being fired. For
instance, if she hoards information and divides up tasks so that she is the
only one who can operate the unit, who is thus indispensable, firing is made
much more difficult. This is CF1a.
Alternatively, forget weakness. Some people hoard information to maximize their own
prerogatives. They take vacations
when they want and let others work with the left-overs, and so on. In short, they enhance their own power
and use it for their own gain.
Type II Control Freak (CF2)
On the other hand, what about someone who is really smart,
or really well-trained? Or someone
who will not make compromises with quality? Or someone who will work as hard as possible to get things
right? Should they be sharing
control (and power) with the less smart, the less trained, the less
hard-working, the more likely to compromise quality? What would you rather own, a true Giovanni Bellini, or one
From the School of Giovanni Bellini?
Needing control can be not for the sake of personal power, but for the
sake of getting it right.
Not to put myself in the class of Jobs and Bezos, but I was
head and sole owner of a medical group.
When it came to business and medical organizations, I knew more than the
constituent doctors by far: I had studied it, I continued to study it, and I
continued to experience it day after day.
I made so many mistakes that I eventually learned from that no one could
match me in mistakes made and lessons taught! I had been there.
Moreover, as the owner, I had a perspective that was
different from others. I was
responsible for the final product, and would have to take pride or shame from
that product. I stood to lose or
make money on performance. Growth
that came from smart moves and ability to please patients and referring
physicians would accrue to the group’s benefit, and to mine, and less directly
to each individual clinician. So
my idea of control was grounded more on CF2, not CF1.
As an example: this may or may not be true, but I recently
heard that since I sold my group one of my initiatives was proving
successful. I thought that
increased patient accessibility was important, so instead of having “secret”
Sunday office hours, we would publicize our availability on Sunday to patients,
make the hours regular and fully staffed.
The result would be both improved patient service and improved competitive
advantage for our group in attracting patients. So, what I heard was that the Sunday hours were proving so
successful that the clinicians were complaining that they were working far
longer on Sundays than they were accustomed to.
If I were still in control, I would point to this as a sign
of success. Yes, it is more
burdensome for clinicians, but in an area of high competition, this could prove
the difference between failure vs. survival. It could lead to actual practice expansion in a difficult
locale. But what I heard was that
there was now consideration of how to curtail availability so the staff and
clinicians could get out earlier.
The leadership intended to let that happen; no rocking the boat. If I had insisted we find a way to keep
the advantage and find a way either to compensate clinicians for the extra work
or hire someone else, etc., would that be self-indulgent CF1? Or would it be virtuous CF2?
Again, that’s not to compare myself to Apple or Amazon, and
maybe that’s a crappy example. But
I find myself rooting for Bezos as he takes over WaPo. There are a lot of changes he can make,
and he should be the arbiter! (One
– get rid of Jennifer Rosen, por favor.)
He should find top people there and elsewhere – Jobs’ formula wasn’t to
find just better engineers, but ten times better engineers, A++ engineers. And then team with them and work really
hard for a vision that works, time and time again, if that’s where his heart
is.
Yes, you have to make compromises because people are people
and you can’t get everything exactly right every time all by yourself. But let’s not surrender to worries
about CF1 when you are a CF2.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment