As I’m sure you know, there are many definitions of the term ‘management’. Here are three I’ve just found following a Google search:

“The process of getting activities completed efficiently with and through other people”

“The process of planning, leading, organizing and controlling people within a group in order to achieve goals”

“The activity of getting things done with the aid of people and other resources”

By way of contrast, take a look at this definition of management from Myron Rush:

“Management is meeting the needs of people as they work to accomplish their jobs”

Here we have the manager using their authority and power not to control but to serve the people they manage. So the manager is cast as the willing servant. That’s what I call different.

Rush proposes that:

“As the manager gives themselves to serving the needs of those under them they will make a happy discovery. People will voluntarily, eagerly, and continually meet their needs in return”

Too good to be true? Well maybe. But the more I reflect on this definition, the more inspiring I find it. On a practical level I see it as both a powerful and empowering management style, particularly in light of the research around the challenges of managing ‘Generation Y’ employees (more of which in future posts).

Within the context of employee engagement, who wouldn’t feel more engaged when working with a manager who’s main purpose was to help them meet their needs?

Would it be realistic to expect managers to take on the role of servant? A real challenge, of course, but I’m guessing there are many managers who would welcome the opportunity to work more collaboratively with their staff particularly if this style brought some of the ‘happy discovery’ that Rush proposes.