Contemporary Project Management 4th Edition Chapter 1 Pdf

The concept of management is well established and very familiar to scholars and practitioners alike. However, it is also very vague, with traditional text book definitions containing almost no concrete characteristics. This chapter aims at developing a more precise definition of management that clearly and fully captures the meaning and the content of the term. This is done by conducting a broad survey of literature and subjecting the main elements to critical analysis. Essential new definitory elements are also conceptualized. As a result, we suggest that management is a steering influence on market, production and/or resource operations in an organization and its units that may address both people and non-people issues and is exerted by multiple organizational actors through either anticipatory norm-setting or situational intervention with the aim of achieving the unit's objectives.

Figures - uploaded by Boris Kaehler

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Boris Kaehler

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

HR Governance

A Theoretical Introduction

Boris Kaehler & Jens Grundei

(authors)

2019

Book Manuscript

Original version published by Springer 2019

(available in July 2018)

The final authenticated version is available online at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94526-2

2

About This Book

HR governance is a relatively new construct that has been drawing increased attention lately.

As a part of corporate governance, it represents the internal and external normative framework

for human resource management and its supervision in organizations. This book theoretically

integrates HR governance with the related domains of corporate governance, corporate

management, HR management and leadership. It thereby provides scholars and practitioners

in the field with a precisely delineated system of theoretical concepts for their work and helps to

convert them into research questions as well as practical concepts. By interpreting the new ISO

30408 norm on human governance and by reflecting recent developments, the book helps to

implement company-specific HR governance systems and to comply with current and future HR

regulations.

About The Authors

Boris Kaehler

is a professor of human resource management at Merseburg University of

Applied Sciences in Germany. Prior to his academic career, he gained ten

years of professional experience as an HR business partner and head of HR

in German corporations, attending to all facets of modern human resource

management and day-to-day personnel work. In addition to his academic

duties he works as an HR strategy consultant specializing in leadership

guidelines, human resource management strategy and HR governance.

Contact: boris.kaehler@hs-merseburg.de

Jens Grundei

is a professor of corporate governance & organization at Quadriga

University in Berlin where he leads the MBA elective "organization". His

work concentrates on organizational design, in particular the assessment

of alternative organizational forms. He has served as a member of the

review board of Organization Science and as a member of the executive

board of a German association for organization. He advises on matters of

governance and organization design.

Contact: jens.grundei@quadriga.eu

3

Preface

There can be no doubt that HR governance is a highly important topic for corporations, public

institutions and other organizations alike. Positioned between the fields of corporate governance,

management, and human resource management, it may well be considered the missing link

between them. However, it has been widely ignored by both scholars and practitioners. Given its

substantial organizational impact, it must certainly play a major role in theory and practice, as the

international norm "ISO 30408" on human governance underlines convincingly. Unfortunately,

while the dominating literature sources never fail to stress its importance, they describe the

concept rather vaguely and fail to precisely establish how it relates to adjacent concepts.

Indeed, HR governance is no intuitive matter. In our attempt to clarify and theoretically integrate

the concept, we were surprised as well as intrigued to realize that well-known and familiar

concepts, like corporate governance, general management and HR/leadership, reveal their actual

vagueness during the attempt to integrate them. So, as we went, first these concepts had to

be specified before we could integrate them into a coherent definition of HR governance. We

are convinced that our theoretic solutions, developed during many long discussions, will prove

useful to scholars as well as practitioners as they provide necessary conceptual clarity that has

been lacking. The constructs treated are of paramount relevance for various lines of current

discussions including the very role of management or managerial positions, respectively, in

modern organizations.

The aim of this first edition is to quickly define the freshly emerging topic and allow for its

coherent future development. This is our aim by introducing our thoughts into the debate. It is

our hope that our new definition will stir the debate on HR governance and help the concept

gain momentum. Future publications will certainly be more extensive as emerging literature and

research, as well as illustrative corporate examples, are integrated. We hope this approach will find

the reader's approval and look forward to any kind of constructive feedback.

We would like to express our gratitude to Oliver Maas of maasgestaltet for the appealing graphic

design of the illustrations, as well as to Lorri King for her most professional proofreading and

helpful suggestions.

Merseburg and Berlin, spring 2018

Boris Kaehler and Jens Grundei

4

Content

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 The Concept of Management – In search of a New Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.1 Need for Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 Analysis of Established Management Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 Definitory Fixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3.1 . Overcoming Fayol's Task Catalog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3.2 . Overcoming the People and Resource Fixedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3.3 . Please Don't: Management vs. Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.4 Important Definitory Supplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.1 . The Organizational Unit as a Point of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4.2 . The Basic Duality: Chasing the Phantom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.4.3 . Constitutive, Strategic, and Operational Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.4.4 . Multiple Complementary Management Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.5 Defining and Conceptualizing Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.5.1 . Integrative Definition of Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.5.2 . Structuring the Manager's Job: Tasks, Activities and Instruments . . . . . . . . 23

Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3 HR Governance as a Part of the Corporate Governance Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.1 The Concept of (Corporate) Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.1.1 . Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.1.2 . External and Internal Governance on Different Hierarchical Levels . . . . . . . 32

3.2 The Interrelatedness of Governance and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.2.1 . Internal Governance as the Result of Constitutive Management . . . . . . . . 33

3.2.2 . People vs. Non-people Management and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.3 Human Resource Management and Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.3.1 . The One Integral Governance Sphere of People Management . . . . . . . . . 37

3.3.2 . Context and Deliverables of HR Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.4 The Concept of HR Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.4.1 . Present Notion of HR Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.4.2 . The HR Model and Leadership Guidelines as HR Governance . . . . . . . . . 43

3.4.3 . Integrative Definition of the Term "HR Governance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.5 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

7

2 The Concept of Management – In search of a New Definition

Abstract

The concept of management is well established and very familiar to scholars and

practitioners alike. However, it is also very vague, with traditional text book definitions

containing almost no concrete characteristics. This chapter aims at developing a more

precise definition of management that clearly and fully captures the meaning and

the content of the term. This is done by conducting a broad survey of literature and

subjecting the main elements to critical analysis. Essential new definitory elements are also

conceptualized. As a result, we suggest that management is a steering influence on market,

production and/or resource operations in an organization and its units that may address

both people and non-people issues and is exerted by multiple organizational actors through

either anticipatory norm-setting or situational intervention with the aim of achieving the

unit's objectives.

Keywords

Management, Constitutive Management, Strategic Management

2.1 Need for Specification

Things we frequently use become so familiar with time that when asked to describe them, we

often struggle to find an adequate response. And sometimes, after due consideration, we have

to admit that we are not sure at all and quickly look it up. This is common with objects, but also

with theoretical concepts. As Parker Follett (1925, p. 69) put it: "We students of social and industrial

research are often lamentably vague. We sometimes do not even know what we know and what

we do not know."

Management certainly is one such over-familiar concept. We practice, discuss and teach it on a

daily basis, but mostly do so without questioning the concept. For one thing, it is not necessary, for

an intuitive, implicit approach often works rather well. Secondly, when the need arises, we might

remember some old lesson from our student days about how management is something like

"planning, organizing, leading and controlling in order to achieve results with people". However,

when subjected to critical thinking, this answer appears unsatisfying. Not only is it very vague,

providing little information on how management is actually practiced, it also has some obvious

flaws, like its redundancy with people management (i.e. human resource management). Finally,

in no way does it describe the specifics of organizational management, but applies just as much

to managing a household or playing a soccer game with friends. "So described, management is

a universal human activity in domestic, social and political settings, as well as in organisations"

(Boddy 2017, p. 11). Indeed, the term management is broadly used in everyday language and

even in the organizational world and is applied to fields as different as data or anger management.

As stated by Koontz (1961, p. 183), writers and experts call almost everything under the sun

management. In an institutional sense, the term refers to managers, i.e. the people responsible

for managing. In a functional sense it refers to the practice of managing.

This chapter aims at developing a better definition of management, used here in the functional

sense of "managing". In order to do so, it is necessary to critically review the existing definitions

in literature and examine which of their aspects are useful and which are not. Additionally, other

8

fundamental elements of the management concept must be identified and verbalized, some

of which have never been appropriately addressed. This seems to be a challenge indeed, since

some of the most likely originators of such a definition have seemingly chosen to pass the buck.

The venerable Peter F. Drucker, for example, provided us with many enlightening insights about

management, but avoided a real definition throughout his books, specifying only the institution

and its tasks. ("[...] it is a multi-purpose organ that manages a business and manages managers

and manages worker and work" Drucker 1954, p. 17). And indeed, the practice of management

has so many facets and variations that capturing its essential elements in a definition is a

challenging quest. "Taking everything we have discussed thus far and turning it into a definition

of management is a non-trivial task!" (Cole/Kelly 2015, p. 18). When it comes to defining

management, even the Academy of Management (2018) does not provide its own definition, but

merely refers to an external online dictionary on its website ("the act or manner of managing;

handling, direction, or control"). Some authors even explicitly resign by saying: "management is

too complex a concept for one definition to capture accurately" (Hitt/Black/Porter 2012, p. 22).

However, such a definition is of utmost importance to the further development of management

science and practice. Not only will it provide scholars and practitioners with a more accurate

understanding of their field, it might also affect the way we teach and train management, as

well as the design and demarcation of management functions within organizations (think line

managers, HR, organizers, governance functions). Many reasonings in this paper might appear

unusual to those accustomed to the old teachings, and some of them might not stand the test of

academic disputation. Nevertheless, at the very least, it will stir a discussion that has long been

overdue. As Cole/Kelly put it: "The search for a comprehensive definition of 'management' that is

not over-generalized still proceeds" (2015, p. 19).

In order to develop a new definition of management that clearly and fully captures the meaning

and the content of the term, the best approach is one that is exploratory, conceptual and quasi pre-

theoretical. Before theories of management can be crafted, and empirically testable predictions

can be derived, basic definitory concepts have to be established. This development process may

best be described as a form of abduction (Folger & Stein, 2017). After all, the conceptual clarity and

appropriateness of the underlying concepts fundamentally determines the quality of scientific

theory and research. A broad survey of literature was conducted in order to identify as many

management definitions as possible. These definitions were then analyzed qualitatively with the

aim of identifying common themes. Because of the rather small, and therefore partly random,

sample and because of the fact that numbers are next to irrelevant when it comes to creating a

new definition, no quantitative analysis was conducted. Instead, the main element clusters are

subjected to critical analysis. Additionally, essential new definitory elements are conceptualized,

building on practical experience, selected research results, and a broad selection of 'best-of'

theoretical considerations from decades of management literature.

2.2 Analysis of Established Management Definitions

Like any concept, management can be defined in different ways. It should be noted that books

and articles on practical management and empirical research rarely define management at all.

In contrast, most textbooks used in management education do. Table 1 provides a collection of

management definitions.

9

Table 1: Examples of Management Definitions

1"The art of management has been defined, 'as knowing exactly what you want men to do,

and then seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way.'" (Taylor, 1911, p. 7)

2"To manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control. To foresee and provide

means examining the future and drawing up the plan of action. To organize means building up the dual structure,

material and human, of the undertaking. To command means maintaining activity among the personnel. To co-

ordinate means binding together, unifying and harmonizing all activity and effort. To control means seeing

that everything occurs in conformity with established rule and expressed command." (Fayol 1916, p. 5/6)

3"Indeed, we can only answer our question: 'What is management and what does it do?' by saying that it is a multi-

purpose organ that manages a business and manages managers and manages worker and work." (Drucker 1954, p. 17)

4"[…] management is the art of getting things done through and with people in formally organized

groups, the art of creating an environment in such an organized group where people can perform as

individuals and yet cooperate toward attainment of group goals, the art of removing blocks to such

performance, the art of optimizing efficiency in effectively reaching goals." (Koontz 1961, p. 186)

5"[...] management can be defined as the process of planning, organizing, directing, and

controlling organizational resources (human, financial, physical, and informational)

in the pursuit of organizational goals." (Dunham & Pierce 1989, p. 6)

6"[...] we will define management as a process of planning, organizing and staffing, directing, and controlling

activities in an organization in a systematic way in order to achieve a common goal." (Aldag & Stearns 1991, p. 13)

7"[...] management can be defined as the process of achieving organizational goals through

planning, organizing, leading, and controlling the human, physical, financial, and information

resources of the organization in an effective and efficient manner" (Bovée et al. 1993, p. 5)

8"Management. The process of achieving desired results through efficient

utilization of human and material resources" (Bedeian 1993, p. 4)

9"The process of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling the work of organization members and of using all

available organizational resources to reach stated organizational goals." (Stoner, Freeman, & Gilbert 1995, p. 7/10)

10 "Management is the process of achieving organizational goals by engaging in the four major

functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling." (Bartol & Martin 1998, p. 5)

11 "Management is the process of achieving organisational objectives, within a changing

environment, by balancing efficiency, effectiveness and equity, obtaining the most from

limited resources, and working with and through other people." (Naylor 2004, p. 6)

12 „[...] management is coordinating work activities so that they are completed efficiently

and effectively with and through other people." (Robbins & Coulter 2005, p. 7)

13 "Management is the process of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling the use of

resources to accomplish performance goals." (Schermerhorn 2005, p. 19)

14 "Management is the profession of achieving results or obtaining results." (Malik 2000, p. 72)

15 "Management is working with and through other people to accomplish the objectives

of both the organization and its members." (Montana & Charnov 2008, p. 2)

16 "Management, to repeat, means getting things done through other people – whether that be on the people plane

(leading and linking) or on the information plane (controlling and communicating)." (Mintzberg 2009a, p. 168)

10

17 "Basically, managing is about influencing action. Managing is about helping organizations

and units to get things done, which means action." (Mintzberg, 2009b)

18 "[...] management is the process of assembling and using sets of resources in a goal-directed

manner to accomplish tasks in an organization." (Hitt, Black, & Porter 2012, p. 22)

19 "Management: A set of activities (including planning and decision making, organizing, leading, and

controlling) directed at an organization's resources (human, financial, physical, and information), with

the aim of achieving organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner." (Griffin 2013, p. 5)

20 "There is no generally accepted definition of 'management' but we consider it to be coordinated activities (forecasting,

planning, organizing, deciding, commanding) to direct and control an organization." (Cole & Kelly 2015, p. 20)

21 "[...] management is the process of reaching organizational goals by working with and

through people and other organizational resources." (Certo & Certo 2016, p. 37)

22 "Management is the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through

planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources […]" (Daft 2016, p. 4)

23 "Management: Coordinating and overseeing the work activities of others so their activities

are completed efficiently and effectively" (Robbins & Coulter 2016, p. 39)

24 "Management is the activity of getting things done with the aid of people and other resources." (Boddy 2017, p. 11)

25 "Management: The act of working with and through a group of people to accomplish a desired goal

or objective in an efficient and effective manner." (Gulati, Mayo, & Nohrian 2017, p. 8).

26 "Management is the process of working with people and resources to accomplish

organizational goals. Good managers do those things both effectively and efficiently."

(Bateman/Snell/Konopaske 2017, p. 13; Bateman/Snell/Konopaske 2018, p. 4)

27 "Management is getting work done through others." (Williams 2018, p. 3)

28 "Management, then, is the planning, organizing, leading, and controlling of human and other resources

to achieve organizational goals efficiently and effectively." (Jones & George 2018, p. 5)

29 "[...] management is defined as (1) the pursuit of organizational goals efficiently and

effectively by (2) integrating the work of people through (3) planning, organizing, leading,

and controlling the organization's resources." (Kinicki & Williams 2018, p. 5)

In this list, three definitory elements continue to reoccur. The first one is Henry Fayol's (1916) task

catalog of planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling (with "commanding"

replaced by "leading" in modern definitions). As one textbook states: "His general statement about

management, in many ways, still remains valid after almost a century and has only been adapted

by the more recent writers" (Cole & Kelly 2015, p. 18). The second element is utilizing people or,

less constrained, resources in general. According to a popular quote often attributed to Mary

Parker Follett, management is "the art of getting things done through people" ¹, a definitory

element some of the following sources explicitly build on. However, most textbooks speak of

resources in general. However, not a single source listed in Table 1 mentions any other object of

managerial influence than resources. The third reoccurring element is that management aims to

achieve results or goals, the latter of which is never specified.

1 This attribution to Mary Parker Follett is probably wrong. Montana/Charnov (2008, p. 2) instead

ascribe it to the president of the American Management Association (AMA) in 1980.

11

On the whole, the literature review reveals a surprising lack of substance. Almost none of the

definitions display a specific view of management. Instead they contain mere variations of a

few outlines introduced a century ago, which might be comfortably familiar, but are all rather

questionable, as will be shown. At the same time, they neglect substantial characteristics of

the management concept that are necessary for understanding its meaning and delineate it

from similar concepts like governance, human resource management and leadership. These

shortcomings and necessary addendums will be addressed below.

2.3 Definitory Fixes

2.3.1 Overcoming Fayol's Task Catalog

To this day, most definitions of management draw on Fayol's groundbreaking work "General and

Industrial Management" published in 1916. Accordingly, "To manage is to forecast and plan, to

organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control" (Fayol 1916, p. 6). At first glance, this seems

plausible enough. Indeed, Fayol's definition has its merits, which will be discussed in the next

subchapter. However, the usefulness of this task catalog itself proves rather limited when it comes

to accurately describing the concept of management. First of all, sometimes these management

tasks are understood to be a circle not very different from the so called "Deming circle" of

continuous improvement. Nevertheless, management must be management even if the tasks

are performed in another order or if certain tasks are not fulfilled (and the cycle never closed). To

e.g. control a work result without having organized this work is nevertheless management. Also,

as has been remarked e.g. by Bovée/Thill/Wood/Dovel (1993, p. 11), they are overlapping and of

mutual influence.

Another problem with the task catalog is that it uses rather vague terms that can be interpreted

in various ways, making it easy to agree on the definition even when there are differing

understandings of its actual meaning. Luckily, Fayol himself provided an explanation of his own

understanding: "To foresee and provide means examining the future and drawing up the plan of

action. To organize means building up the dual structure, material and human, of the undertaking.

To command means maintaining activity among the personnel. To co-ordinate means binding

together, unifying and harmonizing all activity and effort. To control means seeing that everything

occurs in conformity with established rule and expressed command" (Fayol 1916, p. 6). This

explanation makes it clear that the set of five tasks is really meant as a categorization of about

10 tasks: forecasting, planning, organizational design, staffing, defining and steering work tasks,

aligning work activities, team building, performance feedback, and rule compliance supervision.

It certainly does not stop there, or even at 20, because management tasks like motivating, solving

conflicts, safeguarding health, and qualifying/developing people are doubtlessly also necessary

for steering business operations and can easily be subsumed under Fayol's categories. A task

catalog of this length can be useful in many ways, but does not provide for a concise description

of the phenomenon of management in the form of a definition. Instead, all of these tasks may be

characterized as steering influences.

Another problem arises for those who, despite all of these arguments, prefer to stick with the

established five-task catalog of planning, organizing, instructing, coordinating and controlling

(or similar tasks e.g. "deciding" which is often added). In such an abbreviated version, the tasks

12

are only a very generic set of basic steering tasks that, in principle, is applicable in any and all

aspects of life. Even managerial activities themselves are steered like this (e.g. an incentive scheme

must be planned, organized etc.) and any one of the five tasks involves the other four (e.g. the

task of controlling must be planned, organized etc.). All tasks are necessary on the strategic

organizational field as well as on the operative organizational field and take on very different

forms there. For example, "planning" on the strategic field is synonymous with establishing a

strategy (e.g. a plan for a business period), while "planning" on the operative field is synonymous

with setting goals/instructions for daily work operations; "controlling" is either conducting

strategic metrics or evaluating work performance, and so forth. They also apply to banal micro-

activities occurring inside and outside of organizations, like cooking a meal, using the bathroom

or opening a box of cookies, which also have to be planned, organized, and controlled (usually

by the person themselves). In such cases, however, most will prefer to speak in less-managerial

terms like "intending", "making sure", "examining" etc. It is not wrong to state that management is

planning, organizing, instructing, coordinating and controlling operations, but it is also just one of

several possible categorizations and ultimately not very useful. Plainly describing management as

a steering influence on operations captures the very essence of Fayol's concept and leaves room

for more substantial differentiations within the definition.

2.3.2 Overcoming the People and Resource Fixedness

Fayol 's definition describes management as a set of tasks that need to be performed in order to

achieve any and all kinds of business undertakings. In other words, it describes management

as a transverse and superior function that steers the mere execution of work (i.e. conducting/

performing it). What almost everyone can agree on is that not everything that happens in an

organization is management, only the steering part. For example, handling customers/machines or

generating/booking monetary flows are work operations, not management (similarly Gutenberg

1981, p. 31). Deciding which tasks must be performed in order to do this, and motivationally

initiating and controlling these activities, is management. Of course, any management position

also entails a certain amount of executing work (i.e. its conducting/performing), i.e. negotiating

with important clients (Drucker 1973, p. 399/400).

However, the exact nature of the matters steered by management influence remain vague in

almost all management definitions. Those defining it as "reaching objectives through people" and

the like, effectively concentrate entirely on human resources. This makes little sense, because how

would management then differ from human resource management, i.e. people management?

Of course, managing an organization is more than managing personnel. Activities like serving

customers or auditing accounts first spring to mind, but as outlined above, they are merely

execution and not management, so this is not it. Nevertheless, there clearly are also non-people

management tasks like defining a business strategy, choosing a tax model or appointing a budget.

Still, the question of how to systematically delineate the people and factual-technical aspects of

management is not at all trivial. Most management textbooks completely ignore this issue. One

exception is Boddy (2017, p. 16), according to whom managing a business is solely the work of the

board of directors (as opposed to first-line, middle and senior management and working staff).

"They establish policy and have particular responsibility for managing relations with people and

institutions in the world outside – shareholders, media or elected representatives." But, of course,

this is no valid solution here because, not only are organizational members at all hierarchical

levels potentially involved in these activities (think customer contact or participative vision

statement), but also directors have their fair share of people management to do. As a matter

13

of fact, the general considerations on corporate governance outlined in chapter 3 also help to

solve this problem. The solution there is to conceptualize operational management as purely

people management, while constitutive and strategic management are mostly factual-technical

management, containing only embedded particles of the former (i.e. HR governance, HR strategy).

So, management is more than managing people, and indeed many definitions state that

management is about managing resources in general (e.g. Schermerhorn 2005, p. 19; Griffin

2013, p. 5; Daft 2016, p. 4). While this is of course correct, it is also not complete. For one thing,

management is most certainly also about managing markets. Consumer markets are operated

by marketing and sales activities, which have to be managed. For another, the sold products

must be produced in the first place, which involves subtasks like fabrication and research/

development. Non-profit organizations do not address consumer markets or manufacture goods,

but nevertheless face very similar tasks of selling and producing their services to their interest

groups. A single organizational unit (e.g. an internal personnel department) might not mention

its markets and products, but nevertheless has to take care of very similar issues (like salary

systems and their acceptance within the workforce). Such market and production activities, in the

narrow or wider sense of the word, are not resources. They might be largely conducted by human

resources, but as the last paragraph has shown, management is more than people management.

For example, to craft a marketing and production strategy is not a people management task,

but rather a technical-factual management task. Thus, definitions of management that explicitly

mention resources should also explicitly mention market and production operations.

2.3.3 Please Don't: Management vs. Leadership

In recent decades it has become customary for popular authors and business trainers to

somewhat artificially distinguish between management and leadership. There are two approaches

to this. The first goes back to Zaleznik (1977) and Kotter (1990a; 1990b), according to whom

management (the manager) is preserving, directing, routine-driven and administrative, while

leadership (the leader) is visionary, change-oriented, inspiring and progressive. In a particularly

strange but nevertheless very popular alteration, Bennis and Nanus (1985/2007, p. 28f.) claim that

management equals efficiency and leadership equals effectiveness, quite an illogical idea since

any human activity has both of these aspects. The second approach is found in most textbooks

which, by defining management as "planning, organizing, leading, controlling", inevitably have to

conceptualize leadership as a sub-category of management (e.g. Bovée et al. 1993, p. 468; Naylor

2004, p. 355; Gulati, Mayo, & Nohrian, 2017, p. 8; Bateman, Snell, & Konopaske 2018, p. 226). Here,

they draw loosely on the first approach while, at the same time, referring to standard definitions

of leadership as a goal-oriented influence on people (see e.g. Yukl 2013, p. 23/36). Hitt, Black &

Porter (2012, p. 226) try to resolve the issue by conceptualizing management and leadership as

two overlapping circles with a slight intersection.

Nothing of this makes any sense at all. How could leadership not include planning, organizing and

controlling? How is management not a goal-oriented influence on people or does not include

choosing the right direction? In fact, this is a much better description than most definitions;

management is a goal-oriented steering influence. Only very few authors come to this obvious

conclusion. For instance to Mintzberg (2009b), managing is basically about influencing action.

Boddy (2017, p. 16-27) remarks that managers directly and indirectly influence stakeholders,

e.g. subordinates. It is no coincidence that these authors also tend to equate management with

leadership. "People work to create change and to create order in varying degrees, so there is

14

no value in a sharp distinction between managing and leading [...] Managing and leading both

depend on influencing others to put in the effort – whether to create order or change." (Boddy

2017, p. 16-27). "[...] leadership cannot simply delegate management; instead of distinguishing

managers from leaders, we should be seeing managers as leaders, and leadership as management

practiced well" (Mintzberg 2009a, p. 9). Once we leave Fayol's vague task catalog behind and

abstractly define management as a steering influence, it becomes obvious that leadership and

management are one and the same concept. And as it so happens, this is exactly what most

practitioners not previously indoctrinated by trainers etc. will say. "In fact, most people use the

terms interchangeably when they refer to the operation of a business" (Gulati, Mayo, & Nohrian,

2017, p. 8).

This said, another conceptual inconsistency arises. The popular notion of leadership in literature

and practice often includes a wise choice of direction as the very reason people follow a leader.

This clearly is no people task, but a factual-technical matter of the kind outlined in the previous

paragraph. If the concept of leadership includes such choices, it indeed equals management.

However, in defining leadership, probably all scholarly and practical sources unanimously agree

that the reference point of leadership influence is only people (see e.g. Yukl 2013, p. 23/36). If

this was the case, the wise business decision a leader makes would have to be excluded from the

leadership concept and be seen rather as a kind of factual-technical management. Leadership,

then, would not equal management, but rather only human resource management, a thought

also not compatible with the prevailing scholarly opinion. Any attempt to solve the theoretical

problem of separating people from non-people issues must make a connection between the

two concepts of management and leadership, but in doing so it will inevitably collide with the

established concept of at least one of them. Faced with this dilemma, the proposition (elaborated

below in chapter 3.3.1) is to equate management with leadership and conceptualize them as a

steering influence that addresses both people and non-people issues. In any case, the dualism of

management and leadership is misleading and should be abandoned.

2.4 Important Definitory Supplements

2.4.1 The Organizational Unit as a Point of Reference

If management is an influence by managers on operations, it appears tempting to take one

of these ends as a conceptional reference point. However, a theoretically coherent concept

of management can not be based on the influencing persons (management = influence of

managers) for the simple reason that management is a collective activity with variable roles (see

2.4.4). Neither can it be based on the matters or persons that are influenced (management =

influence on e.g. people), because they are subjected to many other influences which are not

management but have a very similar effect (for example influence of external stakeholders or self-

serving initiatives of insiders).

The term "management" can be used either in a functional way, meaning the act of managing,

or in an institutional way, referring to managers, i.e. those people assigned to management

positions. This may explain the misconception that management is an influence emanating from

top and line managers. Admittedly, many sources point out that managers are not the only ones

influencing the organization to be managed. Albeit, most come to the conclusion that focusing

15

on a manager's influence is justified because of their dominant role in the organizational context.

In order to develop a consistent concept of management, a more precise approach is needed.

One promising alternative is to take the organizational unit, rather than the manager, as the point

of reference. Here, an organizational unit shall be defined as a bundle of smaller organizational

units, the smallest unit being a job, itself defined as a bundle of work tasks to be achieved (e.g.

Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson 2013, p. 491). "The manager [...] is someone responsible for a whole

organization or some identifiable part of it (which, for want of a better term, I shall call a unit).

[...] The overriding purpose of managing is to ensure that the unit serves its basic purpose [...]"

(Mintzberg 2009a, p. 12/49). "Managing is about helping organizations and units to get things

done [...]." (Mintzberg 2009b). Hence the definitory suggestion: Management, then, is a steering

influence on operations in an organization and its units with the aim of achieving the focal unit's

objectives. As mentioned before, this influence may address the unit's people and non-people

issues.

Most classic organizations have different hierarchical levels resulting from the subordination/

superordination of organizational units into a hierarchy of nested units connected by reporting

lines, again the smallest unit being a single job (Child 2015). Unfortunately, many contemporary

organization authors associate hierarchies with authoritarian management behavior, high

power distance, inflexible structures and a bureaucratic exchange of information. While this

might indeed be the case in many traditional organizations, it is important to note that, in

principle, a hierarchical system does not necessarily have to possess these characteristics.

Formal lines of reporting/direction may be tight or loose, easily adaptable or inflexible, and

utilized in a domineering or gentle manner. Furthermore, the organizational design of a formal

hierarchy, as illustrated in an organizational chart, obviously represents only one perspective

of the organization, leaving informal relationships, cultural norms and many other relevant

organizational aspects unconsidered. Authors providing other perspectives always have the

tendency to declare hierarchies redundant, often without noting that these new concepts can just

as well degenerate into Kafkaesque bureaucracy (e.g. Hammer & Champy 1993). In fact, scholars

and practitioners alike seem to find the concept of hierarchy unabatedly relevant, which is why

it is still taught, and few companies have chosen to abandon it. As for modern organizational

concepts, we find it remarkable that one of the most strident contemporary attempts to "abolish

hierarchy", the concept of "holacracy" (Robertson 2015), stresses the need for strict organizational

rules and explicitly uses the term "governance" to relate to them. In any case, the crucial point, in

connection with the unit as a reference point, is that nested units each display an entity that has to

be managed (see Figure 1a, Figure 1b, Figure 1c), a concept that applies just as well to an informal

network structure of coequal units.

Fig. 1a: Classic org chart depicting reporting lines

16

Fig. 1b: Classic org chart showing the boundaries of the nested units

Fig. 1c: Chart of nested units only

In traditionally organized institutions, the entire organization is the superordinate unit, which

contains divisions that contain departments that contain teams that contain jobs. This principle

of nested units resembles the famous Russian matryoshka dolls (a generic metaphor also used,

for example, by Hilb 2008 to define various aspects of corporate governance). The outer layers

contain the inner layers, the former being empty and meaningless without the latter. The only

difference is that every unit really contains multiple dolls instead of only one (Grundei & Kaehler

2018). Like in this metaphor, it is not only the overall entity of the entire organization that has to

be managed, but also each division, department, team and job. One reason many management

initiatives (e.g. cost reduction or change campaigns) fail is probably that they tend to be limited

to the overall corporate level. They are not sufficiently cascaded down into the subordinated

units which actually, taken together, must achieve the desired results. Thus, it is worth noting that

managing takes place at the level of every single organizational unit.

17

Fig. 2: Organizational unit entities as the point of reference for management and governance (from

Grundei & Kaehler 2018, p. 590)

Managing a whole institution may be called "organization management", but to avoid

misunderstandings it is probably better to use a more specific term referring to the nature of an

institution, like "corporate management", "university management" or "church management". In

any case, managing an institution means addressing the overall issues of the organization as a

whole, as well as managing all its organizational units. The term "general management" seems

even more fitting and suitable to delineate management from HR management. Unfortunately,

according to the prevailing opinion in literature, general management is defined as responsibility

for several organizational activities or a complete division/subsidiary, as opposed to functional

management that is responsible for just one organizational activity/function" (e.g. Boddy 2017, p.

13; Kinicki & Williams 2018, p. 21). To avoid misunderstandings, it is probably better to avoid the

term "general management" in connection with the overall entity.

2.4.2 The Basic Duality: Chasing the Phantom

There is a fundamental duality in management. It consists of the two basic forms that

management influence can take. In management and leadership literature this duality goes

by many names. It is referred to as "personal vs. structural" (Wunderer 2011, pp. 4-14; Armutat

2012, pp. 32/33; v. Rosenstiel 2014, pp. 3-4 ² ), "structural-systemic management" vs. "interactive

leadership" (Wunderer 2001), "directing action vs. shaping activity" (Jung 2008, pp. 3-4 ³),

"leadership vs. leadership substitutes" (Kerr & Jermier 1978; Kerr & Jermier 1997; Rosenstiel 2011,

2 Own translation.

3 Own translation; German original: "Lenkungshandeln/Gestaltungshandeln"

18

pp. 359/360; Yukl 2013, pp. 21/171), "organizing vs. disposing" (Kosiol 1962, p. 28 ⁴ ), "information

plane vs. people/action plane" (Mintzberg 2009a, pp. 49-96), "systems leadership domain vs.

direct leadership domain" (Hunt 1991, pp. 27-35) or "direct vs. indirect leadership/management"

(Lord & Maher 1991, pp. 163-178; Yukl 2013, p. 21; Boddy 2017, pp. 16-27). Unfortunately, none of

these established terms seem precisely fitting for the matter at hand, and none of the respective

concepts covers the full scope of the two basic forms of influence. One might well say that the

duality is a phantom concept, described only vaguely and inconsistently in literature and hidden

away rather than prominently placed in academic textbooks. However, it is hidden in plain sight,

because it is the subtext of all management practice and known as a success factor to many

practitioners. Already drawing on the following subchapter (4.2.3) as well as on the governance

definition elaborated below (3.1.1), we propose to refer to this basic dualism as "management by

anticipatory norm-setting" vs. "management by situational intervention". The former, management

by anticipatory norm-setting, describes a management influence that is mediated by rules. These

rules can be informal, as may be the case with cultural norms and emergent strategies; usually

though they are formalized rules explicitly laid out as a guideline for human behavior. The latter,

management by situational intervention, is a management influence that determines work

behavior situationally by formal or informal interference ⁵. Management without intervention is

hardly imaginable. However, the superior and much more efficient form of management certainly

is management by anticipatory norm-setting. It follows the substitutional principle of organization

(Gutenberg 1981, p. 29) which may be regarded as the very essence of systematic management.

2.4.3 Constitutive, Strategic, and Operational Management

In order to outline the concept of management and better understand the duality of norm-

setting vs. intervention, it is helpful to conceptualize management – following the venerable

St. Gallen model of management – as a trinity of three subdomains: normative, strategic and

operative management (Bleicher 1991; Bleicher 1994; Bleicher 2011; Rüegg-Stürm & Grand,

2003; Rüegg-Stürm & Grand, 2015; Ulrich & Krieg, 1973; Ulrich & Krieg refer to it as "philosophy/

policies", "planning" and "disposition/steering"). Normative and strategic management are no

end in and of themselves, but guidelines for operational management, which itself is directed

at the operations of the unit (see Figure 3a in which "normative" is substituted by "constitutive").

Rüegg-Stürm & Grand (2015) summarize the basic concept as follows: "The normative perspective

provides orientation on issues of an organization's identity and societal accountability [...]. The

strategic perspective relates to questions of safeguarding the future of an organization, and

thus of deriving organization-specific ideas of success. The operational perspective is focused on

aspects of efficiently managing everyday work life and utilizing resources."

4 Own translation.

5 Intervening by setting rules is still intervention, but creates regulation for the future.

19

Fig. 3a: The three task fields of management (modified from Kaehler 2017, p. 54)

So-called normative management deals with the establishment of fundamental norms,

understood to be prescriptive regulations. It is constitutive of the respective organizational unit

and lays the foundation for all activities within the unit, defining its general purposes, objectives,

fundamental structures, principles and guidelines in the specific context of the economy and

society. It aims to create value for the unit's stakeholders and provide meaning to its members,

thereby shaping the system and ensuring its ability to survive and develop (Bleicher 1991; Bleicher

1994; Bleicher 2011). Yet, it also includes the abstract definition of all activities conducted within

the scope of strategic and operational management, as well as the design of fundamental

instruments (formalized tools, e.g. control systems), process/unit structures and resources to

be used in it. Therefore, the term "normative management" appears misleading, because norms

(i.e. regulations) are stipulated in strategic and operational management as well, and may be

formal or informal. We therefore suggest the use of the term "normative management" only in the

general sense outlined above, i.e. since all managerial influence is exerted through anticipatory

norm-setting. We propose substituting the term "normative management" with "constitutive

management" (Grundei & Kaehler 2018). This constitutive management creates general behavior

norms, which together, and insofar as they are formalized (written or otherwise documented) and

regulate managerial behavior, are nothing but than corporate governance (see chapter 3.1.1) ⁶.

6 Conversely, constitutive management creates not only governance, but also non-formalized behavior

norms that can be regarded as pre-governance, which, in most cases, eventually becomes formalized

(e.g. a fundamental change at first only introduced in a CEO's speech, but nevertheless binding).

20

In comparison, the function of strategic management is to provide guidance for and steerage of

the operational activities, aligning them with the constitutive prescriptions (Bleicher 1991; Bleicher

1994; Bleicher 2011). Furthermore, it deals with strategies, understood to be plans and rules on

how to reach long-term objectives and overcome obstacles. Like constitutive management,

strategic management is a task field, the tasks being to determine strategic objectives, as well

as scenario-based plans for accomplishing them. A strategy refers to a particular medium-term

or long-term timeframe (even if it is changed weekly or never at all). Strategic norms are not

considered governance, because they are non-permanent (i.e. valid only for the fixed term during

which the strategic objective should be reached according to the strategy) and not necessarily

formalized in writing ⁷. However, creating governance norms, i.e. practicing constitutive

management, can certainly be part of a strategy.

Operative management involves implementing normative and strategic prescriptions, achieving

performance, and accomplishing work by steering everyday activities (Bleicher 1991; Bleicher

1994; Bleicher 2011). It also involves steering an organizational unit, and therefore must not be

confused with execution in the sense of conducting or performing the unit's work operations

(although anyone managing a unit will have to execute certain things him or herself). Operative

management includes the control and enforcement of constitutive/strategic norm compliance, as

well as the continuous monitoring of unit structures, processes and instruments for improvement.

However, if these control activities lead to an actual adjustment of such structures, this adjustment

is not operational, but again part of constitutive or strategic management. Notably, though the

term seems contradictory at first glance, there are indeed operative norms. These are behavioral

prescriptions in everyday operations (especially for executing/conducting/performing behavior)

that are not of a constitutively permanent or strategically periodical nature, but rather operative-

dispositional case decisions for a specific situation. A manager instructing a team to call all

customers about a product recall establishes a norm for all team members, but no strategic or

governance norm.

Traditionally, the concepts of normative and strategic management were mostly used in regard

to the overall level of an entire institution, while operative management referred to management

on the subordinated unit levels. Nevertheless, taking into account the principle of nested units

explained above, it is obvious that every single organizational unit needs all three kinds of

management, just as every matryoshka doll has feet as well as a body and a head (Grundei &

Kaehler 2018). Following the same logic, the term "corporate management" should not be used

to refer only to the overall level of an entire organization, but rather to describe the trinity of

these complementary management domains in each and every organizational unit (see Table

2). The weight or importance of an issue is not a defining criterion for constitutive and strategic

management, because what is most essential to a single job might be unimportant to the

organization as a whole, and vice versa.

7 Since many organizations and authors use the term "strategy" for permanent, constitutive

regulations, it is necessary to have a close look at the respective sources in order to determine

whether they actually refer to strategy or rather to governance under the term of "strategy".

21

Table 2: Constitutive, Strategic and Operational Management on Different Hierarchical Levels

Constitutive

Management

(= management by

normative regulations)

of the overall unit

(= entire organization) Determining the framework and

management system of the unit

(e.g. mission/vision, legal form, business model, stakeholders,

possibly tax model; general management model;

stipulations with regard to organizational unit structures,

processes and fundamental formalized instruments)

of any intermediate unit

(= team, department etc.)

of any elementary unit

(= job)

Strategic

Management

(=management by

normative regulations)

of the overall unit

(= entire organization)

Determining strategies of the unit for a certain period

(i.e. market, production and resource strategies)

of any intermediate unit

(= team, department etc.)

of any elementary unit

(= job)

Operational

Management

(= management

by intervention)

of the overall unit

(= entire organization)

Steering (not executing!) day-to-day operations

of the unit (incl. control and enforcement of

constitutive/strategic norm compliance)

of any intermediate unit

(= team, department etc.)

of any elementary unit

(= job)

Bleicher (1991; 2011) describes normative and strategic management on the one hand and

operative management on the other as two sides of the same coin, the former with a shaping and

the latter with a steering function. And, indeed, constitutive and strategic management are similar

insofar as they are nothing else than norm-based regulation on a constitutive and strategic level.

In contrast, operational management is purely situational intervention, which includes surveilling

and enforcing the constitutive and strategic regulations.

2.4.4 Multiple Complementary Management Actors

The common notion that management is what top and line managers do has already been

criticized in subchapter 2.4.1. Indeed, taking the organizational unit as a point of reference also

accounts for the obvious fact that organizational management is a collective influence exercised

by multiple actors, including top and line managers, but also HR specialists, the managed

subordinates themselves and, to a certain degree, supervisory bodies. Top and line managers

might be more dominant than other actors in most organizations, but the influence of those is

nevertheless management – down to the self-management or participatory influence of a single

job-holder. "Management [...] is an activity spread [...] between head and members of the body

corporate." (Fayol 1916, p. 6). Taking the organizational unit as a reference point, it may be said that

the unit is managed by its head, but also by his or her direct superior, the unit members or central

staff, and other units.

This notion combines well with a modern understanding of management as self-management.

While Fayol himself might not have meant it that way, all management tasks described by him

and others are at least potentially self management tasks. In fact, it is not even possible for a

superior to extrinsically perform all of the management tasks for a given employee with respect

to all aspects of his or her work. Total control is an illusion. The simple truth, only partially

22

acknowledged by theoretic models like collective and shared leadership (e.g. Pearce & Conger

2003; Contractor et al. 2012; D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger 2016), is that leadership

always and inevitably is a collective phenomenon. To fully manage executional (i.e. conducting/

performing) work of other people as a line manager, i.e. directing operations in any and all detail,

is impossible (and would reduce people to robot-like instruments, albeit robots without artificial

intelligence). However, if management is understood to be partly – ideally even mostly – self-

management (= self-direction), this distinction makes sense. Against this backdrop, the question

arises as to which roles the managerial actors should assume and how they should interact. One

possible answer, following the model of complementary management/leadership (Kaehler 2017),

is that subordinates should practice maximum self-management, while managers and HR advisors

should limit themselves to a mere (but nevertheless important) compensationary role. In any case,

management influence on an organizational unit is exerted not by one person alone, but rather

by multiple complementary actors.

But not everybody's goal-oriented influence is management. Firstly, it seems reasonable to

exclude external influences from the management concept, thereby limiting it to internal

organizational actors, i.e. members of the organization. The external impact of outsiders like

legislators or regulatory authorities cannot be called management, although it is an influence and

follows more or less the same pattern. Supervising bodies may be seen as a part of the extended

organization, only partially exerting "managerial" influence or doing so in the general sense of

the term. Secondly, management aims to achieve the organization's objectives. This criterion

excludes self-serving activities of organizational members. When insiders pursue initiatives that

aim to achieve their own personal objectives instead of the unit's, this is a goal-oriented influence,

but should not be called management.

2.5 Defining and Conceptualizing Management

2.5.1 Integrative Definition of Management

Based on the theoretical considerations outlined above, we propose the following new definition,

which takes into consideration all aspects previously discussed (modified from Grundei & Kaehler

2018):

Management is a steering influence on market, production and/or resource operations in

an organization and its units that may address both people and non-people issues and

is exerted by multiple organizational actors through either anticipatory norm-setting

(= constitutive or strategic management) or situational intervention (= operational

management) with the aim of achieving the unit's objectives. To manage a unit is

synonymous with "directing" or "leading" it.

On the one hand, this definition avoids the shortcomings of traditional management definitions.

It contains Fayol's basic notion that management is a transverse steering function without relying

on the problematic task catalog of "planning, organizing, leading, controlling" or the like. By

defining management as a steering influence on the mere execution (conducting/performing)

of operations, the essence of traditional definitions is included while providing the option to

concretize this essence with a more comprehensive and therefore more realistic task catalog,

23

which itself does not have to be included in the definition. The element of "market, production

and/or resource operations" overcomes the traditional people and resource fixation of almost

all extant management definitions. The proposition that management may address people and

non-people issues implies that human resource management is a sub-domain of management.

Management, leadership and direction are considered to be synonyms, abandoning pseudo-

informative differentiations. Thus, the concept of leadership must contain people issues as well as

non-people issues like choosing a business model, organizational design etc.

On other other hand, the definition contains important enhancements to the management

concept. The reference point of management influence is specified as the organization and its

units. This means that not only the overall entity of the entire organization has to be managed,

but also each division, department, team and job. The fundamental dualism of anticipatory norm-

setting versus situational intervention is expressed and matched with the trinity of the St. Gallen

management model. In effect, the definition clearly outlines the full range of management task

fields, with constitutive or strategic management as norm-setting, pre-structuring tasks, and

operational management as purely situational intervention. Finally, management is described as

a collective influence exercised by multiple actors, including line managers, but also HR specialists,

supervisory actors and the managed employees themselves. The definition thus includes self-

management, paying tribute to the practical importance of self-direction in management. Since

total external control of human behavior does not exist, this is also a theoretical prerequisite

for defining management as a steering influence on the mere conducting of operations. The

term 'organizational actors' excludes the external influence of outsiders and the element of

achieving organizational objectives and self-serving behavior, which are both influences, but not

management.

2.5.2 Structuring the Manager's Job: Tasks, Activities and Instruments

If management is a steering influence that directs work operations, the form which this influence

assumes remains to be specified. Classic task models describe management as a catalog of

tasks. This approach may also be traced back to Fayol's (1916, p. 5/6) abovementioned model

in which he defined management as planning (forecasting), organizing (building material and

human structure), commanding (maintaining the personnel's activity), coordinating (binding,

unifying, harmonizing) and controlling (monitoring rule conformity). In another attempt, Chester

Barnard (1938, pp. 215-234) outlined three functions of the executive: Firstly, the maintenance of

organization communication, secondly the securing of essential services from individuals, and

thirdly the formulation of purpose and objectives. Henry Mintzberg (1973, pp. 54-99) describes ten

roles of a manager: The interpersonal roles of "figurehead", "leader" and "liaison", the informational

roles of "monitor", "disseminator" and "spokesman" and the decision roles "improver/changer",

"disturbance handler", "resource allocator" and "negotiator". Peter F. Drucker (1973, p. 400) and

Fredmund Malik (2000, p. 153-230) promote a catalog consisting of setting objectives, organizing,

measuring and developing people, plus decision-making/supervising (only Malik) or motivating/

communicating (only Drucker).

In principle, structuring the manager's job by defining management tasks is a promising approach.

However, as this overview shows, established models not only have implausibly few tasks, but also

neglect the difference between constitutive, strategic and operational task fields. Also, they can

be misleading insofar as the management tasks are usually described using verbs, so that it is

very easy to confound them with the actual management activities that have to be carried out.

24

And indeed, most literature sources fall into this trap. On closer examination though, "planning",

"organizing", "motivating", "controlling", "developing" and the like are no concrete activities, but

rather refer to the aims of achieving plans, structure, motivation, compliance and development.

These are necessary, but not sufficient in describing the manager's job. As Mintzberg (2009a, p.

44) remarks: "lists of managerial roles [...] take the job apart without putting it back together. [...] I

was responsible for one of these lists [...] As one manager commented: 'the descriptions are lifeless

and my job isn't'". This must remain so until the list of tasks is supplemented by a list of concrete

activities. Malik (2000, pp. 243-331) takes this into account by supplementing the task catalog

with a catalog of management "tools", by which he means meetings, reports and performance

appraisals. This is indeed a crucial theoretical differentiation: In order to fulfill a task – which really

is an intended achievement – concrete activities, such as meetings, are necessary. Activities are

occupations, i.e. concrete actions to be performed. In other words: They bring the task list to life.

Nevertheless, as Kaehler (2017, pp. 313ff.) points out and elaborates, Malik's "tools" category mixes

up two different things, namely activities and instruments. As for management activities, these

are concrete actions. For example, the management task of defining a strategy may be the result

of conducting a strategy workshop, the task of providing orientation the result of a speech or a

dialog, the task of developing people the result of a coaching session and so on. With regard to

management time, only activities, not tasks, can be underpinned with concrete time budgets. It

is fairly easy to measure and plan how long a weekly meeting or work discussion takes. How long

it takes to come up with a unit's strategic plan or achieve an employee's orientation/development

can also be measured and planned, but only by considering the necessary activities. As for the

instruments, these are formalized tools like written regulations, systems, programs and forms,

designed to facilitate the achievement of management tasks through management activities.

For instance, a good compensation system can help a lot in motivating people, but the task of

motivation can never be fulfilled by the compensation system alone, only by its application in

dialogs and through other activities.

Thus, in order to understand and design the manager's job as well as management systems, the

three elements – tasks, activities and instruments – must be theoretically distinguished as well

as integrated (see Table 3). In order to fulfill the catalog of management tasks (= achievables),

management activities (= actions) must be conducted in which management instruments (=

formalized tools) are applied.

25

Table 3: Tasks, Activities and Instruments of Management

Management Tasks

(= aims to be achieved)

Management Activities

(= actions to be performed)

Management Instruments⁸

(= formal tools to be applied)

Constitutive

Management

To stipulate the internal

factual-technical

governance of the unit

(e.g. mission/vision, business

model, stakeholders, tax model;

general management model;

fundamental technical processes and

instruments incl. control system)

To stipulate the internal HR

governance of the unit

(people management model/system;

fundamental HR processes and

instruments incl. control system; also

incl. fundamental work processes

and organizational units)

Governance workshops

and projects

Formalized tools for crafting

internal governance (e.g.

organizational assessment

tools; RACI matrixes)

Strategic

Management

To determine the market

strategies, production

strategies and non-human

resources strategies of the unit

(incl. infrastructural technical

processes and instruments)

To determine the

people management

strategies of the unit

(incl. infrastructural HR instruments;

also incl. infrastructural work processes

and adjustment of organizational units)

Strategies = work objectives

and normative prescriptions

for the next business period

considering obstacles

Strategy workshops

and projects

Formalized tools for crafting

strategies (e.g. SWOT analysis,

scenario planning). In a

wider sense, all aspects of

internal governance may be

regarded as a management

tool for crafting strategies.

Operational

Management

To steer (not execute!) day to

day business by managing

people, i.e. ensuring

the various premises

of the productive human

labor that conducts

business operations

(e.g. well-defined work objectives,

sufficient motivation and qualification,

innovation, control and enforcement of

constitutive/strategic norm compliance;

according to complementary leadership

theory, 24 tasks are necessary)

Leadership (= people

management) activities, i.e.

conducting the various acts

that are necessary in order

to achieve all operational

management tasks

(e.g. conducting dialogs,

projects or team meetings)

Formalized HR management

tools (systems, programs,

forms). In a wider sense,

HR governance and HR

strategies may be regarded

as management tools for

operational management.

8 All these instruments are formal tools containing norms and as such are

a part of a unit's governance (see definition in chapter 3).

26

Reference List

Academy of Management (2018): What is Management? http://aom.org/FAQs/About-AOM/

What-is-Management-.aspx?terms=what%20is%20management (accessed Feb 8, 2018)

Aldag, Ramon J. / Stearns, Timothy M. (1991): Management

(2nd edition). Cincinnati: South-Western.

Armutat, Sascha (2012): Elemente, Zusammenhänge und Formen internationaler

HR-Governance-Strukturen; in DGFP Deutsche Gesellschaft für Personalführung e.

V. (ed.): Internationales Personalmanagement gestalten – Perspektiven, Strukturen,

Erfolgsfaktoren, Praxisbeispiele; DGFP-PraxisEdition Band 103; 2012, pp. 25-50.

Barnard, Chester I. (1938): The Functions of the Executive (new edition

1968); Cambridge: Harvard University Press (first published 1938).

Bartol, Kathryn M./Martin, David C. (1998): Management (3rd edition); Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Bateman, Thomas S. / Snell, Scott / Konopaske, Robert (2017): Management – Leading &

Collaborating in a Competitive World (12th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Bateman, Thomas S. / Snell, Scott/Konopaske, Robert (2018):

Management (5th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Bedeian, Arthur (1993): Management (3rd edition). Orlando: The Dryden Press.

Bennis, Warren G. / Nanus, Burt (1985): Leaders (2nd new edition

2007). New York: HarperCollins (first published 1985).

Bleicher, Knut (1991): Das Konzept Integriertes Management. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Bleicher, Knut (1994): Normatives Management – Politik, Verfassung und

Philosophie des Unternehmens. (1st edition). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Bleicher, Knut (2011): Normatives Management – Politik, Verfassung und

Philosophie des Unternehmens. (8th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Boddy, David (2017): Management – An Introduction (7th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Bovée, Courtland L. / Thill, John V. / Wood, Marian B. / Dovel,

George P. (1993): Management (1th edition). McGraw-Hill.

Certo, Samuel C. / Certo, S. Trevis (2016): Modern Management – Concepts

and Skills (14th global edition). Essex: Pearson Education.

Child, John (2015): Organization: Contemporary Principles and

Practice. (2nd edition). Chichester: John Wiley.

Cole, Gerald A. / Kelly, Phil (2015): Management – Theory and

Practice (8th edition). Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.

Colquitt, Jason A. / Lepine Jeffery A. / Wesson, Michael (2013):

Organizational Behavior – Improving Performance and Commitment

in the Workplace (3rd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Contractor, Noshir S. / DeChurch, Leslie A. / Carson, Jay / Carter, Dorothy R. / Keegan, Brian

(2012): The Topology of Collective Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 23, pp. 994-1011.

Daft, Richard L. (2016): Management (12th edition); Boston: Cengage Learning.

D'Innocenzo, Lauren / Mathieu, John E. / Kukenberger, Michael R. (2016): A Meta-

Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations.

Journal of Management 42 (7), pp. 1964-1991. doi: 10.1177/0149206314525205

Drucker, Peter F. (1954): The Practice of Management (1st Harper business

edition 1993); New York: HarperCollins (first published 1954).

27

Drucker, Peter F. (1973): Management – Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (new

Harper business edition 1993), New York: HarperCollins (first published 1973).

Dunham, Randall B. / Pierce, Jon L. (1989): Management (6th edition). Jon Lepley.

Fayol, Henri (1916): General and Industrial Management (English

edition 1949); London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd (first published in

French in "bulletin de Ia sociéte de l'industrie minérale" 1916).

Folger, Robert / Stein, Christopher (2017): Abduction 101 – Reasoning processes

to aid discovery. Human Resource Management Review 27, pp. 306-315.

Griffin Ricky W. (2013): Management – Principles and Practices (11th

international edition). Cengage Learning South-Western.

Grundei, Jens / Kaehler, Boris (2018): Corporate Governance – Zur

Notwendigkeit einer Konturschärfung und betriebswirtschaftlichen

Erweiterung des Begriffsverständnisses; Der Betrieb 1½018. pp. 585-592.

Gulati, Ranjay / Mayo Anthony J. / Nohrian, N. (2017): Management

– An Integrated Approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Gutenberg, Erich (1981): Concepts and Functions of Organizations; International

Studies of Management & Organization Vol. XI (1), pp. 26-32.

Halpin, Andrew W. / Winer, B. James (1957): A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior

Descriptions; in Stockdill, Ralph M. / Coons, Alvin E. (eds.): Leader Behavior – Its Description

and Measurement; Ohio State University Business Research 1957; pp. 39-51.

Hammer, Michael / Champy, James (1993): Reengineering the Corporation – A

Manifesto for Business Revolution (1st edition). New York: Harper Business.

Hilb, Martin (2008): New Corporate Governance – Successful Board

Management Tools. (3rd edition). Berlin: Springer.

Hitt, Michael A. / Black, J. Stewart / Porter, Lyman W. (2012):

Management" (3rd edition). New Jersey: Pearson.

Hunt, James G. (1991): Leadership – A New Synthesis; Newbury Park: Sage.

Jones, Gareth R. / George, Jennifer M. (2018): Contemporary

Management (10th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Education ()

Kaehler, Boris (2017): Komplementäre Führung – Ein praxiserprobtes Modell der

Personalführung in Organisationen. (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

Kerr, Steven / Jermier, John M. (1978) Substitutes for Leadership –

Their Meaning and Measurement; Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance 22, pp. 375–403. doi: 10.1.1.463.5909

Kerr, Steven / Jermier, John M. (1997) Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning

and Measurement – Contextual Recollections and Current Observations;

Leadership Quarterly 2 (8), pp. 95–101. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.317

Kinicki, Angelo/Williams, Brian K. (2018): Management – A Practical

Introduction (8th edition); New York: McGraw-Hill 2018.

Koontz, Harold (1961): The Management Theory Jungle; Journal of the

Academy of Management, December, pp. 174-188. doi: 10.2307/254541

Kosiol, Erich (1962): Organisation der Unternehmung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Kotter, John P. (1990a): A Force for Change – How Leadership

Differs from Management. New York: The Free Press.

28

Kotter, John P. (1990b): What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business

Review, 68 (3), pp. 103-111. doi: 10.1109/EMR.2009.5235494

Lord, Robert G. / Maher, Karen J. (1991): Leadership and Information Processing – Linking

Perceptions and Performance. Volume 1 People and Organizations. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Malik Fredmund (2000): Managing Performing Living: Effective Management for a New

Era (English edition 2006). Frankfurt am Main: Campus (first published in German 2000).

Mintzberg, Henry (1973): The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, Henry (2009a): Managing. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.

Mintzberg, Henry. (2009b): What Managers Really Do. Wall Street Journal

August 17, 2009. http://www.mintzberg.org/sites/default/files/article/

download/mgrsreallydo.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2018.

Montana, Patrick J./Charnov, Bruce H. (2008): Management

(4th edition). New York: Barron's Educational Series.

Naylor, John (2004): Management (2nd edition). Essex: Pearson Education/Prentice Hall.

Parker Follett, Mary (1925): The Giving of Orders; in Metcalf, Henry C. / Urwick,

L.: Dynamic administration – The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett;

New York: Harper & Brothers (text first published in 1925); pp. 50-70.

Pearce, Craig L. / Conger, Jay A. (2003) (eds.): Shared Leadership

– Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership"; Sage.

Robbins, Stephen P./Coulter, Mary (2005): Management

(8th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Robbins, Stephen P. / Coulter, Mary (2016): Management

(13th global edition). Essex: Pearson Education.

Robertson, Brian J. (2015): Holacracy – The Revolutionary Management

System That Abolishes Hierarchy. London: Portfolio Penguin.

Rosenstiel, Lutz von (2011): Employee Behavior in Organizations –

On the Current State of Research. Management Revue 22 (4), pp. 344-

366. doi 10.1688/1861-9908_mrev_2011_04_Rosenstiel

Rosenstiel, Lutz von (2014): Grundlagen der Führung. In Rosenstiel, Lutz /

Regnet, Erika / Domsch, Michel E. (ed): Führung von Mitarbeitern – Handbuch für

erfolgreiches Personalmanagement. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, pp 3-28.

Rüegg-Stürm, Johannes / Grand, Simon (2003): Das neue St. Galler Management-

Modell – Der HSG-Ansatz (2nd edition). Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.

Rüegg-Stürm, Johannes / Grand, Simon (2015): The St. Gallen Management Model –

English Translation of the Fourth Generation of the German Text. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.

Schermerhorn, John R. Jr. (2005): Management (8th edition); Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Stoner, James A.F. / Freeman, R. Edward / Gilbert, Daniel R. Jr. (1995): Management

(6th edition). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall International Editions.

Taylor, Frederick W. (1911): Shop Management (new edition

2008). Nu Vision Publications (first published 1911).

Ulrich, Hans / Krieg, Werner (1973): Das St. Galler

Management-Modell. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.

Williams, Chuck (2018): MGMT10 – Principles of Management

(10th edition). Cengage Learning (Boston).

29

Wunderer, Rolf (2001): Employees as "co-intrapreneurs" – a transformation

concept. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22 (5), pp.

193-211. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005676

Wunderer, Rolf (2011): Führung und Zusammenarbeit – Eine

unternehmerische Führungslehre (9th edition); Köln: Luchterhand.

Yukl, Gary (2013): Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). London: Pearson.

Zaleznik, Abraham (1977): Managers and Leaders – Are They Different? Harvard

Business Review 55, pp. 67-76; doi: 10.1097/00005110-198107000-00005

... The discussions above show that management and leadership are generic terms (Kaehler & Grundei, 2019). Each of them explains the various perceptions about the organization of material and human elements in an environment. ...

• Hyginus Banko Okibe

The outbreak of coronavirus in late December 2019 manifested profusely from the first quarter of year 2020, and left several countries in a state of disarray with serious impact on every facets of national and international life. The new strain of the coronavirus referred to as COVID-19, was either new to the scientists or to the medical practitioners. It explains the lapses in its management that stunned the world. Although no one anticipated the outbreak of such virus, however, the debates about its origin admixed with conspiracy theories preoccupied many countries and distracted attention on how to contain the virus from further spread with the accompanying fatality. Focusing on Nigeria, this study examined the management of COVID-19 in the country, especially, how political leadership braced up with the challenges. As analytical research, it relied on secondary data and applied content analysis for inference. It adopted "bounded rationality model" of decision-making theory to explain the challenges posed to decision-making under crisis or emergencies, and discuss how it affected the management of coronavirus in Nigeria. The findings show that there are glaring deficits of proactive leadership in the COVID-19 management in Nigeria. It resulted in most of the management guidelines introduced by government being copy and paste (imitation of what other countries adopted without comparing the differences in climate). The consequences were dissensions and remarkable poor public compliance behaviours. It requires that Nigerian leaderships begin to develop health infrastructure, human and industrial capacities that countries tap during emergency that confines nations to its territorial borders.

... The discussions above show that management and leadership are generic terms (Kaehler & Grundei, 2019). Each of them explains the various perceptions about the organization of material and human elements in an environment. ...

• Hyginus Banko Okibe

This paper focuses on the rivalry between sovereignty and globalization in the contemporary world order. It is a comparative study, descriptive in nature and employs secondary data. The study adopts theory of power by Hans Morgenthau to explain how differentiated capacities define nations and why globalization seems to supplant sovereignty in response to changes brought about by technological innovations and advancements. As a result, globalization has been in constant rivalry with sovereignty and sometimes violates the rights that nations have over their internal affairs. The study recommends that both sovereignty and globalization, though important in the modern world, should have the mode of their applications and limitations clearly defined in international law and dutifully respected by nation-states.

... In 1961, Taylor considered management to be a way of telling someone what to do and leading the person to do it to the best of their ability at the lowest expense [1]. In 2019, Kaehler and Grundei claimed that management affects resources, production, and the market, and participates in determining and achieving the enterprise's goals through various partaking players [2]. Distinguished theorists who have dealt with research into management have specified fundamental elements of management (its goal, people, and managerial functions). ...

The wood-processing industry currently does not sufficiently use modern technologies, unlike the automotive sector. The primary motive for writing this article was in cooperation with a Slovak wood processing company, which wanted to improve its logistics processes and increase competitiveness in the wood processing sector through the implementation of new technologies. The aim of this article was to identify the positives and limitations of the implementation of Internet of Things (IoT) technology into the wood processing industry, based on a secondary analysis of case studies and the best practice of American wood processing companies such as West Fraser Timber in Canada, and Weyerhaeuser in the USA. The selection of case studies was conditional on criteria of time relevance, size of the sawmills, and production volume in m 3. These conditional criteria reflected the conditions for the introduction of similar concepts for wood-processing enterprises in Slovakia. The implementation of the IoT can reduce operating costs by up to 20%, increase added value for customers, and collect real-time data that can serve as the basis for support of management and decision-making at the operational, tactical, and strategic levels. In addition to the secondary analysis, methods of comparison of global wood processing companies, synthesis of knowledge, and summarization of positives and limitations of IoT implementation or deduction were used to reach our conclusions. The results were used as the basis for the design of a general model for the implementation of IoT technology for Slovak wood processing enterprises. This model may represent best practice for the selected locality and industry. The implications and verification of the designed model in practice will form part of other research activities, already underway in the form of a primary survey.

Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership brings together the foremost thinkers on the subject and is the first book of its kind to address the conceptual, methodological, and practical issues for shared leadership. Its aim is to advance understanding along many dimensions of the shared leadership phenomenon: its dynamics, moderators, appropriate settings, facilitating factors, contingencies, measurement, practice implications, and directions for the future. The volume provides a realistic and practical discussion of the benefits, as well as the risks and problems, associated with shared leadership. It will serve as an indispensable guide for researchers and practicing managers in identifying where and when shared leadership may be appropriate for organizations and teams.

• Martin Hilb

Martin Hilb presents an innovative and integrated approach to the theory and practice of corporate governance. Central to this approach is a set of instruments - developed and tested by the author - that can be used by boards to offer effective strategic direction and control to their organizations. The board instruments can be readily applied to the targeted selection, review, remuneration and development of board members, and for conducting board self-evaluations. This new approach to corporate governance is based on four guiding principles: keep it situational, keep it strategic, keep it integrated, and keep it controlled. Together, these principles form the basis of an integrated approach that addresses all key aspects of corporate governance. The main arguments in each section are supported by conceptual models, practical board tools or case studies, making the book ideally suited to board members, senior managers and post-graduate students.

• Martin Hilb

Martin Hilb presents an innovative and integrated approach to the theory and practice of corporate governance. Central to this approach is a set of instruments - developed and tested by the author - that can be used by boards to offer effective strategic direction and control to their organizations. The board instruments can be readily applied to the targeted selection, review, remuneration and development of board members, and for conducting board self-evaluations. This new approach to corporate governance is based on four guiding principles: keep it situational, keep it strategic, keep it integrated, and keep it controlled. Together, these principles form the basis of an integrated approach that addresses all key aspects of corporate governance. The main arguments in each section are supported by conceptual models, practical board tools or case studies, making the book ideally suited to board members, senior managers and post-graduate students.

• Arthur G. Jago
• Robert G. Lord
• Karen J. Maher

List of Tables. List of Figures. Acknowledgements. Series Editor's Introduction. Part I: Leadership and Information Processing. Part II: Perceptual and Social Processes. Part III: Leadership and Organizational Performance. Part IV: Satbility, Change, and Information Processing. Bibliography. About the Authors. Index.

• Boris Kaehler

Der Autor analysiert Defizite der Personalführung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, erläutert führungstheoretische Grundlagen und gibt einen kritischen Überblick über die wesentlichen konzeptionellen Ansatzpunkte und Theorien der Führung. Er stellt sein in der Praxis erprobtes Modell der Komplementären Führung vor, das führungstheoretisch unter anderem an Aufgabenmodelle der Führung, das Führen als Dienstleistung und den Shared-Leadership-Ansatz anknüpft. Wesentliche Bezugspunkte sind die Zielvorstellung des sich selbst führenden Mitarbeiters, kompensatorische Mechanismen bei Ausbleiben dieser Selbststeuerung sowie eine aktive Rolle der Personalfunktion im Führungsgeschehen. Die Komplementäre Führungstheorie ist anwendungsorientiert und bietet eine schlüssige konzeptionelle Basis für betriebliche Führungsmodelle. Das Vorgehen bei der Entwicklung und Einführung solcher Modelle wird beschrieben und mit Projektempfehlungen hinterlegt. Das Buch richtet sich an alle führungstheoretisch Interessierten, speziell aber an HR-Fachleute und Führungskräfte, die das Führen in Organisationen gestalten und nach überzeugenden theoretischen Grundlagen für ihre Arbeit suchen. Für die zweite Auflage wurde es vollständig überarbeitet und stark erweitert.

We propose that the process of abduction is a useful tool for how management scholars can better develop new explanatory hypotheses and theories. In doing so, we differentiate abduction from the more commonly studied methods of deduction and induction. We briefly explain the various research streams on abductive reasoning and propose a version that is focused more on the process of abductive reasoning and less on the outcomes. We argue that by using contrastive reasoning and by recognizing different triggers of abduction, this process can help guide researchers to the types of causal explanations that are interesting. We conclude with some examples of abduction in the history of management research and a discussion of features of the reasoning processes involved.

Contemporary Project Management 4th Edition Chapter 1 Pdf

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326209797_The_Concept_of_Management_In_Search_of_a_New_Definition

Share this post