With respect to management there have been many definitions put foreword over the years. Fayol in Martin whose work on management dates back to 1916, saw management as an activity. He identified five aspects to it; planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling. More recently in 1941 Follet in Sturdy states it as being 'the art of getting things done through people'. The benefits of this definition as suggested by Sturdy are that it suggests the concept of management as an art by combining the idea of achieving something tangible, whilst involving the human dimension. On the other hand he also critiques this definition as he says it lacks rational techniques, does not include non human resources, the management of consumers or any political aspects to management.

Child describes the definition of management as being a muddle but refers to it as having three interrelated aspects; an activity, an ideology and an elite social grouping. Here we are beginning to see evidence of a change in viewpoint of what management is thought to entail. It is perceived to be less focussed on control, although Collins states 'this does not mean that control is no longer part of management's role'.

It is not until we look at later definitions, for example by Watson, that we see a political content. He maps management as 'SAMP', Science, Art, Magic and Politics. In this definition we are seeing politics as part of management activity in which he acknowledges that in order to be a successful manager an individual has to know how to "play the game" in order to achieve his objectives.

Personal experience of political process

From the above definitions of management it is clear that earlier concepts did not include any political element or take on board any human motivational factors. However more recent writers on management do clearly acknowledge a political element. Andrews records these different eras of management thinking, from scientific management to the more recent guru theory. Handy in his work suggests that all organisations can be mapped onto four different types of culture. These cultures still include ones of a scientific management background as well as the more modern view of guru theory. He identifies four organisational cultures, which he labels as role, power, task and person. However by examining each of these in turn I intend to show through personal experience that political processes are taking place in each of them. In the following paragraphs I will argue that no matter which organisational culture is adopted there is always a political element to the management within the organisation.