Purpose – Much current thinking and practice treats “management” as a peripheral activity, intrinsically inferior and subordinate to “leadership”. The purpose of this paper is to reclaim “management” from the margins and return it to the center of the stage, alongside “leadership”. It aims to highlight the importance of a set of “task” management activities (including clarifying roles, and planning, monitoring, controlling and co‐ordinating activities) in delivering organizational objectives, in getting the job done. Design/methodology/approach – The research described looks at the degree of correlation, and its statistical significance, between different aspects of 360 degree assessments of performance, as well as between 360 degree assessments and three self‐assessment instruments. Evidence is also presented on the differences between senior and middle managers. Findings – Statistically significant relationships were found between various “task” behaviors and 360 degree outcomes. There was a direct link between “task” behaviors and “task” outcomes, concerned with getting the job done, and an indirect link to other outcomes, arising from the systemic and systematic nature of such behaviors. Differences were found in the nature of the relationships between middle and senior managers. Research limitations/implications – The research uses one outcome measure, 360 degree assessments, examines one contextual variable, seniority, and is based on managers in the UK public sector. Further research using other outcome measures, examining other contextual variables and based on other populations would be useful. Practical implications – The research findings highlight the importance of “task” management behaviors and indicate which particular behaviors are important at different management levels. The practical implications for managers are that to deliver organizational objectives and get the job done, they need to focus more on such behaviors, using specific behaviors appropriate to their seniority. Social implications – This paper has implications for individual training and development professionals and for organizations providing and purchasing such services, including government organizations, who need to recognize the importance of “management” alongside “leadership”. Originality/value – This paper provides an evidence‐based challenge to the widely held view that “management” is intrinsically inferior and subordinate to “leadership”.
