David Zetland at Aguanomics asks a very basic question about our perceptions of what constitutes management:
Question of the week
That’s because they are not really supposed to manage water supply and demand as much as make it easier for the real users, get the water they their customers, to need. (Customer service is job 1)
Managers move people or objects around to meet organization goals that they set, but water managers don’t really know the goal. They know how much water there is. Customers know the goal.
I’m thinking that “managers” are more like waterboys who deliver water where and when it’s needed, on command.
But that’s not a very powerful title, is it?
Got a better one?
Or, got another reason for why they should be called managers or a different reason why they should be called something else?
Dan here: For those who think stewardship is part of management he recommends Land Stewardship: Duty of care as a foundation.