This material is for informational and educational purposes only and is not medical, psychological, or psychotherapeutic advice. If you are experiencing an acute psychological condition or need professional support, please contact a doctor, psychologist, psychotherapist, or crisis service.
“Omnipotent control” is used here as a psychoanalytic concept. It does not establish a diagnosis or someone’s character from a single action.
The report is due in an hour, but the manager asks for the third time whether it is ready. He opens the file, changes two sentences, and messages a colleague to ask why they have not replied. For a few minutes, he feels calmer. Soon he wants to check again.
Concern about the result gradually fills the available space. Staff begin waiting for the next correction, while the manager feels work would stop without his constant intervention. The arrangement can keep confirming the apparent need for more control.
Where the concept comes from
In his 1913 paper, “Stages in the Development of the Sense of Reality,” Sándor Ferenczi described a transition from an early sense of omnipotence towards recognition of a separate external world. The Freud Museum places this idea in psychoanalytic history.
In adult life, the concept raises a question: what happens when an outcome depends on someone else’s decision, chance, or circumstances? Can I wait, clarify an agreement, or accept refusal? Or do I begin acting as though every answer must be under my direction?
Where influence is real
A manager can agree on a deadline, define the expected result, and ask whether resources are sufficient. An important task can include a planned progress check. Those actions make responsibility clearer.
A message every ten minutes may feel productive while taking time away from the task. Look at what each check changed. Was there new information? Was an obstacle removed? Or did you briefly feel better simply because you had done something again?
Wanting to manage another person’s feelings
In a close relationship, similar tension may look different. You apologise and immediately ask whether the other person has stopped being angry. They request time, while you explain again, persuade, and monitor their tone. An intention to reconcile gradually turns into a demand for the desired response now.
Your part includes acknowledging what you said, repairing what you can, and agreeing on future actions. The other person’s response may come later. Waiting leaves uncomfortable uncertainty to deal with: rest, attend to your own tasks, or speak to someone outside the conflict.
Examining an episode of your own
Recall a situation involving repeated checking, persuasion, or intervention. What outcome did you want? What actually depended on you? Which response from the other person was hardest to tolerate?
Choose one adjustment: agree on an update time instead of constant questions, leave a colleague their task, or allow a pause after apologising. Then observe what happened. Gradually, influence can include both your own action and other people’s separateness.