I have never been particularly comfortable with the way we use the word “management.” We talk about management as though it is a group of people sitting somewhere above everyone else in the organization. We talk about “management” making decisions, “management” causing problems, “management” needing training, and “management” failing to communicate. I think we have confused the word.
In my work, I often hear people speaking about “managing” other people. It cannot be done.
We manage stuff and things, the inanimate, the systemic, the mechanical. But we lead people. To lead is to influence the heart and mind of a purposeful adult toward a common horizon.
Management, however, is about the “hand.”
Our word management comes from the Latin manus – the hand. When we manage, we are literally “handling” the business. We are exerting influence over events and assets to ensure they serve the Mission.
But to handle anything effectively, you have to know what you’re reaching for. In the architectural framework of an organization, there are only two dimensions where the “hand” (e.g., managing) can exert influence: we influence Routine (with Policies and Procedures), and we influence Change (with Plans). (You can learn more about the relationships between Plans, Policies & Procedures in my book, The Guidant Path: Creating The Path Ahead.)
Despite the colloquial misuse of the term, “management” is not a group of people. Management is a series of four functions that have to exist if an organization is going to consistently produce the outcomes its customers require. Those functions are planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.
I also don’t use the term “manager.” It is an antiquated hierarchical term that describes a position in an organizational structure rather than the work that actually needs to be done. I prefer the word Guidant because it describes a person who helps create the path ahead and enables others to move along it. Depending upon the nature and level of the work, I think of them as Team Guidants, Systems Guidants, and Strategic Guidants.
We manage stuff and things. We lead people.
People aren’t machines to be managed. They are human beings who need direction, encouragement, clarity, and the opportunity to exercise judgment. Systems, structures, resources, processes, information, and performance are managed. People are led.
That distinction changes the way I look at organizations.
Planning
Planning is often treated as something a Team Guidant or other organizational leader has to do in addition to the “real work.” I don’t see it that way. Planning is the work.
Before an organization can produce a desired result, somebody has to determine what that result is supposed to be, what resources will be required, what has to happen, who needs to be involved, what standards will apply, and how the organization intends to get from where it is to where it needs to be. That isn’t paperwork. That is management.
Planning is the process of deciding what we are going to accomplish and how we intend to accomplish it. At the strategic level, the Strategic Guidant helps establish direction and priorities. At the systems level, the Systems Guidant translates those priorities into structures and processes that can actually work. At the team level, the Team Guidant helps people understand what needs to happen and coordinates the work necessary to produce the intended result.
The functions may be performed at different levels and by different people, but the principle remains the same. If we don’t plan, we are allowing circumstances to make our decisions for us.
Follow through: Take one important result your organization is currently trying to achieve and write down what “done” actually looks like. Then identify what has to happen to produce that result, what resources are required, who is responsible for each part, and what could prevent the result from occurring. If you cannot answer those questions, you don’t have a plan yet. You have an intention. Click here to read my article about Planning: Why Does My Boss Never Have A Plan?
Organizing
Once we know what we are trying to accomplish, we need a structure capable of producing it. That is organizing.
Organizing isn’t putting names in boxes on an organizational chart. It is creating the architecture of the organization so people can actually perform. Who is responsible for what? Who has the authority to make particular decisions? How does information move through the organization? How do resources get where they are needed? What processes are used? Where does one person’s responsibility connect with another person’s responsibility? What happens when something doesn’t go according to plan?
These are management questions.
The Systems Guidant has a particularly important role here because organizational systems determine much of what people can and cannot accomplish. If the structure cannot reliably produce the outcome the customer requires, we have an organizational problem.
This is where I think we often make a serious mistake. We see a poorly designed system producing poor results and then blame the people working inside the system. Sometimes the people are the problem. But sometimes the people are doing exactly what the system allows them to do.
Put good people inside a bad structure, and you shouldn’t be surprised when the results are bad. People perform within systems, and the responsibility of the Systems Guidant is to help make those systems capable of producing the results the organization exists to provide.
Follow through: Choose one recurring problem in your organization that people have been trying to solve for some time. Instead of asking who is responsible for the problem, trace the system that produces it. Look at authority, information, resources, workflow, communication, and decision-making. Ask yourself, “What is this system requiring people to do?” You may discover that the problem is not the person. It is the architecture. Read my article on Organizing here: Why Is My Boss So Disorganized?
Leading
This is where I draw an important line. We manage systems. We lead people.
Leading is not ordering people around. It is not having a title. It is not sitting at the top of an organizational hierarchy and expecting people below you to comply. Leading is inspiring others to take positive, decisive action.
That requires communication, credibility, judgment, and an understanding of what motivates people and what gets in their way. It requires the ability to establish direction and then help people move toward it.
The Team Guidant has a particularly important role in this function because leadership happens through relationships. A good Team Guidant doesn’t have to personally control every action. In fact, the opposite is often true. The Team Guidant creates conditions in which people can make good decisions and take appropriate action without waiting for someone above them to tell them what to do.
The Strategic Guidant provides direction. The Systems Guidant provides an organizational structure capable of supporting that direction. The Team Guidant helps people turn that direction into action. Those roles are different, but they are connected.
That brings us back to organizing. If we have failed to create the right structure, no amount of inspirational leadership will permanently overcome it. People can only perform within the architecture we provide.
Follow through: Ask three people you work with a simple question: “What is getting in the way of your doing your best work?” Then listen without defending the organization, explaining why something cannot be changed or correcting their perception. You may learn more about your leadership and your systems from those three conversations than you will learn from another staff meeting. Read my article on Leading: Why Doesn’t My Boss Know How To Lead?
Controlling
The word “controlling” makes some people uncomfortable because they associate it with control over people. That isn’t what I mean. Controlling is another management function, and it means measuring actual performance against planned performance.
We planned to produce a particular outcome. Did we? We established a standard. Did actual performance meet the standard? We expected a particular customer result. Did the customer receive it? If not, why not?
Controlling gives us the information necessary to determine whether the organization is performing as intended.
This is also where measurement can go badly wrong. If we measure what is easy to count rather than what matters to the customer, we can create the illusion of control while having very little understanding of actual performance.
Counting activity is not the same as measuring results. A person can answer a hundred calls and still provide terrible service. A department can process thousands of transactions and still frustrate its customers. An employee can work eight hours and accomplish very little of value.
The question isn’t simply what we counted. The question is whether we produced the result we planned to produce and whether that result provided the value the customer required.
Follow through: Take the three measurements your organization relies upon most heavily and ask what each one actually tells you about customer value. If the measurement tells you primarily how busy someone was, how many hours they worked or how much activity occurred, ask what outcome that activity produced. Then identify at least one measure that tells you whether the customer actually received the result the organization exists to provide. Read my article on Controlling here: Why Doesn’t My Boss Fix Problems?
The four functions belong together
Planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are not four unrelated activities. They are four parts of the same management function. Planning establishes what we intend to accomplish and how we intend to accomplish it. Organizing creates the structure and systems necessary to make that plan possible. Leading engages people in taking the action necessary to produce the result. Controlling compares actual performance with planned performance so we know whether the system is working.
That is management as I understand it.
It isn’t a department, a title or a collection of people occupying a particular level in a hierarchy. Management is the architecture of performance.
That is why I believe we need to stop automatically blaming “management” when something goes wrong. Sometimes the problem is a person. Sometimes the problem is leadership. But sometimes the problem is the architecture in which those people are expected to work.
The Team Guidant may be doing everything possible while working inside a system that makes good performance difficult. The Systems Guidant may have inherited processes that no longer produce the outcomes customers require. The Strategic Guidant may have established a direction without ensuring that the organization has the structure, resources, and processes necessary to get there.
Those aren’t necessarily people problems. They may be management problems, and management problems require management solutions.
If the system is poorly planned, poorly organized, poorly led or poorly measured, telling people to work harder isn’t management.
It’s wishful thinking.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
