There is a lot of truth to that, but I think there is a deeper reason that causes that control freak behavior. The control freak behavior is just a side effect of a deeper motivation, namely that developers are quality freaks.
The book "First, Break All The Rules" is a really great "management" book that focuses on the concept of "talents." They use the word talent in a different way than we typically use it in conversation, and they break it down in to different kinds of talents. Of particular interest is what they call Striving talents,
"Striving talents explain the why of a person. They explain why he gets out of bed every day, why he is motivated to push and push just that little bit harder. Is he driven by his desire to stand out, or is good enough good enough for him? Is he intensely competitive or intensely altruistic or both? Does he define himself by his technical competence, or does he just want to be liked?"
Given this definition, I think we can make the case that developers have the Quality Striving Talent. This is what drives us to want our code to be perfect and our UIs to be perfect and our architecture to be perfect and our designs to be perfect and on and on. Without this talent, I think a developer would go completely insane!
But, quality is not a very straight forward concept, which brings us to:
Paradox #1: Programmers vs Management
Programmers, being so quality driven, want quality in everything they do. Like, the aforementioned, code, UI, architecture, design, etc.
On the other hand management wants a product that people will buy. Obviously, quality factors in here too: people will want quality in the product they buy, so management will want quality in the product they sell. But management doesn't need quality that goes as deep as the programmers are interested in. After all, very little of the details of programming are visible to the users or to management.
The paradox here is clear, and it explains an awful lot of the friction you can encounter between programmers and management.
Paradox #2: Quality is in the eye of the beholder
For example, one person may like a UI with bright color, gradients, shadows, reflections, slidy animations and some content mixed in where it fits. Other people might look at that UI and see distracting noise and bloat. They would prefer black on white densely packed text emphasizing content.
To each his own I guess. But, which of these UIs is higher quality?
Which of these paintings is higher quality?
Paradox #3: Defining Quality
This has been a lot of talk about quality, but what is quality? Here are some factors you might look at to define the quality of an application:
- Bug count
- User Friendliness
- Feature parity
What about factors for code quality:
- Bug count
- Lines of code
- Broken Windows
Realizing that quality means different things to different people at different times is important to remaining sane. Especially when you're a quality driven developer. But as we've seen, quality is a slippery contradictory customer, and this really makes things non-trivial. One thing that might help is focusing on an intended audience to help you decide just what quality matters the most to that audience. By focusing on an imaginary third party’s quality needs you can remove some of your own quality driven needs and find acceptable compromises.