Practicing Management: Understanding what we do

As we noted in Friday’s post, when people offer definitions of management, or some aspect of it, as a way of entering into a discussion or argument, the definitions are commonly impregnated with the conclusions that it is desired you accede to. That is to say, most people who address the subject today seem to have an agenda they want you to accept. That’s potentially okay, but it’s important for you to be aware of what’s going on, and to constantly evaluate the value of the premises you are presented by carefully assessing the direction the argumentation is taking.

On the other hand, one person who typically could be relied on to develop his argument from the available data, rather than from a preferred or otherwise preordained conclusion, was the great management thinker Peter Drucker. Indeed, he carefully considered the meaning of the term management generally, and in its various permutations across both time and culture, as well. He understood that it evolves to address the actual contemporary use and changing demands being made of it. He was careful to consider these as he contemplated developing a useful definition of the term. However, he was careful to always bear in mind the reason for its very existence before daring to describe it. Consider, for example, the following quotes:

The question, What is management? comes second. First we have to define management in and through its tasks.”

The tasks of management are the reasons for its existence, the determinants of its work, and the grounds of its authority and legitimacy.”

These were written over 30 years ago, in Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, but they remain vital tests for any assertions made about the role of management or managers: Do they accomplish what they are hired to do? How do we know that? What do they identify as the source of their actions or of their roles in the organization?

Much, if not most, of what is written or proposed for management today does not adequately address these questions, seeming rather to be built on circular, self-referential justifications that arise from the individual, or assertions made about him or her, rather than from the organization and its purpose. This, of course, serves to cast into grave doubt any usefulness - or, at the very least, any organizational usefulness - that is argued for them.

Ask these questions yourselves as you entertain the many “revolutionary” approaches to management or, certainly, “leadership” that you are confronted with. If the answers don’t exist, or seem only superficially or evasively relevant to the questions, then you may be wasting your time with these systems or pseudo-theories; you may even be exposing yourself to the danger of becoming a less effective, and less relevant, manager.

In the next few posts, we will consider the implications of this grounding of the concept of management in the tasks - rather than the persons - of managers as we continue our current discussion of how to develop managerial and executive ability. We will consider additional references to Peter Drucker’s ideas in this area, as well as those of his great predecessor, Mary Parker Follett. Next, we will take a closer look at how Drucker himself attempted to approach the definition of management.

—

Please be sure see all the posts in this series!

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.