This has become a very popular definition of management for several reasons. Firstly, this definition is very simple and easy to under­stand. Secondly, it highlights the indirect nature of a manager’s job.

A manager does not operate a machine or sell a product himself. Rather he guides others in producing and selling goods and services. Thirdly, this definition reveals that a manager is the leader of people working under him. Fourthly, it states that management is basically an art or practice of achieving results.

The above definition is, however, inadequate for the present day concept of management. It suffers from the following drawbacks.

(i) This definition does not reveal that management is a science. The modern concept of management is much wider than simply a skill in getting things done through other people. Since the days of F.W. Taylor management has become a science based on certain fundamental principles.


(ii) The above definition does not highlight how does manage­ment get things done through people. It fails to reveal the functions of a manager and the skills used for getting things done.

(iii) This definition does not recognize the role of human beings. It treats people as mere tools forgetting results and does not consider their feelings, emotions and needs. People are inanimate objects and cannot be treated as mere tools.

People have their aspirations and are not mere commodities or means to achieve certain ends. Management is certainly much more than just getting things done through others.

(iv)The above definition gives an impression that management gets things done by hook or crook. Results alone are not significant. The means employed to achieve results are equally important. This definition is of man’s putative character.


(v) This definition does not reveal that a formal organizational set up is needed for getting things done.