What is management? In recent years, a number of schools or approaches to management have evolved. What is rather upsetting to the manager is that there are a variety of unrelated approaches without any suggestion of their relationship to each other. Even more upsetting is that some of these approaches seem to be based on the disciplines of particular researchers rather than their ability to help managers. The study explores the rationale underlying two predominant orientations. One is concerned with the process of management, while the other emphasizes the function of management. The managerial process involves such intuitive principles as planning, organizing, and staffing. The managerial function involves arranging equipment to perform functions such as procurement, production, and adaptation. The goal is to illustrate the relationship of these approaches to each other and to specific managerial needs. The study was conducted among top managers in six municipal organizations. The research utilized a questionnaire and decision-making simulation for gathering data on the relationship of each managerial orientation. The results indicate that each orientation deals with different areas of managerial action. Key managerial processes focus on integrating, making decisions, recording information, motivating, and negotiating. The managerial functions, in this study, are part of three subsystem efforts which are administrative, adaptive, and technical. When management is defined as a process, it has no relationship to functions; when it is defined as functions of specific subsystems, there is no positive relationship to the process.

abstract This study examined the relationship between sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism, organizational outcomes and employee health. In particular, we wanted to investigate to what degree employees were substituting sickness presence for sickness absence. Three hypotheses were tested to formalize this ‘substitution proposition’. We surveyed a Canadian public service organization which was involved in a large scale downsizing initiative. For this study, 237 Personnel Corporation (pseudonym used) employees responded to the survey, representing a 66 per cent response rate. Survey results indicated that, while the workforce was of average health, sickness absenteeism was less than half that of the national average. The difference could be accounted for by sickness presenteeism – the average number of days employees attended work while ill or injured was greater than the number of days of sickness absence. The pattern of results supported the notion that employees were substituting presenteeism for absenteeism. The frequency and type of self‐reported health problems were highly similar for presenteeism and absenteeism. Work factors (e.g. job security, supervisor support and job satisfaction) tested were significantly correlated with presenteeism. Presenteeism appears to be a stronger predictor of health than absenteeism, suggesting that efforts to improve workplace health may have a more immediate impact on presenteeism than on absenteeism.