Introduction: A Word Left Vague for Too Long

Few terms are thrown around as casually—and defined as poorly—as “management.” Ask a manager what it means, and many cannot give a convincing answer. Yet because they cannot admit, “I don’t know,” they deflect questions from subordinates with platitudes and call it “coaching.”

Without a clear definition of their own, they cannot manage. You cannot execute an activity you do not understand.

Leadership may draw on talent or charisma. Management is an activity. Activities require definitions.

Defining Management: Every Activity That Achieves the Goal

My position is straightforward: management is every activity carried out to achieve a purpose or goal.

That may sound abstract, so let me unpack it into three layers:

  • Adjusting components: design structures, rules, and processes so they support the goal. → For example, establish rules, formats, and workflows that enable progress tracking and execution.
  • Adjusting resources: secure the right amount and quality of people, money, equipment, and time. → Recruit and assign people, develop their skills, acquire tools, or cut back when necessary.
  • Adjusting to the environment: respond to market shifts, threats, and constraints so you can keep reaching the goal. → Engage external stakeholders, meet social responsibilities, counter risks, comply with regulations, or even revise targets.

In short, you treat the organization as a system and keep tuning its components and resources within its environment so that it fulfills its purpose. That is management in my book.

Yes, this is my personal stance. But it aligns with Peter Drucker, who described management as disciplined practice. The idea is hardly radical.

Ultimately, everything within a manager’s remit rises or falls with management. I learned that decades ago under a supervisor I considered incompetent, and Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2025 report underscores it today: the greatest drag on team engagement is disengaged managers.

How Management Differs from Leadership: Drawing the Map vs. Steering the Ship

People often pair “management” with “leadership.” Here is how I separate them:

  • Leadership defines the destination based on the organization’s reason for being and inspires people to reach it. Vision statements and principles are tools for narrowing that path.
  • Management keeps the organization moving toward that destination by adjusting components, resources, and environmental responses.

Leadership draws the map that excites everyone. Management keeps steering the ship until it arrives. They complement each other, but they are not the same job.

Profit and Environment: Where ESG and CSR Fit In

In capitalism, a for-profit company exists to keep generating profit. That premise is obvious.

Today we also talk about CSR and ESG. Do not mistake them for new purposes.

A company is still a system embedded in an environment. Ignore CSR or ESG, and you lose social trust, face regulation and criticism, and ultimately cannot sustain profit. Therefore ESG and CSR are environmental factors within the manager’s scope. They are not alternate goals; they are constraints you must absorb to keep pursuing the original purpose.

So whenever you hear claims about a “new era of management” defined by ESG, be skeptical. The fundamentals have not changed.

Gallup notes that managers face pressure from external forces—new customer expectations, AI and digital transformation, flexible work. ESG and CSR fall squarely in that category. They do not rewrite the definition of management; they reinforce it.

Why Managers Without a Definition Always Fail

The archetypal failure is the manager who takes a post without a definition of management.

They may enjoy short bursts of success—lucky timing, talented subordinates, a favorable climate—but it never lasts. When conditions shift or people leave, everything collapses.

This is not bad luck. Without a definition, they are not managing; they are winging it.

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions

Does defining management guarantee success? No.

Understanding and practicing the definition is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

You can still lose because of resource shortfalls, environmental shocks, or political forces beyond your reach. Management is an ongoing activity; you keep doing it. That does not mean every goal becomes attainable. Believing in an omnipotent management theory will hurt your organization.

Gallup’s research reinforces this nuance. Managers who receive basic training report half as many active frustrations as those who receive none. Learn coaching skills and your own performance climbs 20–28%. Ongoing training and support lift managerial well-being by 32%. In other words: definition plus skill development plus environmental adaptation is the combination that drives sustainable success.

Management Is Accountability for Results

In the end, management and leadership share one yardstick: accountability for results.

In a for-profit company, the litmus test is whether you keep generating profit. Sustained goal attainment is the only measure of good management. Processes and frameworks are support structures. At the end of the day, either you delivered or you did not.

Conclusion: Define It and Keep Acting

So what is management? It is every activity required to keep producing results.

  • Without your own definition, you cannot manage.
  • Only sustained results earn you credit for doing it well.
  • Environmental factors are constraints, not new purposes.
  • Management is not omnipotent, but you can always keep practicing it.

Management is not magic or a genetic trait. It is the relentless work of treating your organization as a system and adapting it to reach its goals. The playbook is unfinished, but the principles are known. Remember them, and you can free your organization from the gamble of “definitionless managers” who coast on luck or on their teams.

FAQ

Q: What is management? A: It is the set of activities that plan, adjust, and control people, assets, information, and processes so that a team or organization keeps achieving its goals. It is not a title; it is the act of maintaining a system that produces results.

Q: How is management different from leadership? A: Leadership sets a destination people believe in. Management adjusts the system so everyone can reach it. Strong managers cultivate both, but each plays a distinct role.

Q: Why do title-only managers fail? A: They give ad-hoc instructions without understanding the activity. Even if they get lucky once, the success does not repeat. As soon as a star subordinate leaves, they crumble.

Q: What are the signs that management is missing? A: Success depends on a single hero, wins do not repeat, and subordinates burn out and quit. Those are symptoms of a system that no one is actually managing.