Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

A Fourth Revolution in the Use of Resources

Ryan Lee

PUBLISHED:

October 1, 2024

When is a resource especially useful? The answer often varies based on the technological advancement of the society in question. Human capital is especially susceptible to this variable, as it is only as useful as its carrier’s tools are. In this Fourth Industrial Revolution, the knowledge worker’s debut is the consequent shift of human capital owing to information technologies such as the computer and artificial intelligence. Just how monumental this shift may be is to be analyzed.


Historically speaking, few resources aside from hard currency like bullion and necessities like water have maintained a constant degree of usefulness. Clearly, an abundance of fossil fuels offers a different meaning to a hunter-gatherer tribe and an industrialized nation just as a plentiful supply of spices means different things to a medieval European kingdom and any country today. More often than not, though, these differences in meaning can be attributed to differences in technology. A hunter-gatherer society has no means and no purpose to exploit fossil fuel technology, while any industrial nation will demand (at least for now) a constant supply of non-organic energy due to lighting systems that require the energy from fuels. Even the disparity in significance of spices can be attributed to technology, however indirectly. The medieval European kingdom was at the mercy of the Italian merchants, Ottoman sultans, and Indian planters to attain expensive spices, especially without any technologies in the fields of preservatives, cultivation, or transport. By contrast, today’s globalized trading network, mixed with extensive advancements in preservatives and wider spice cultivation have reduced salt and pepper from the most expensive commodity on a continent to a kitchen counter constant. Typically, changes in the usefulness of resources go in tandem with shifts in the technologies that put them to use. The introduction of steam power in the Industrial Revolution, for example, necessitated the use of coal and other fossil fuels. Great Britain’s vast underground coal reserves, thus, suddenly became a valuable asset to the country in propelling it to industrial powerhouse. These shifts can also go the other direction. With the rise of oil- and diesel-powered combustion machines in the 20th century, those same coal reserves declined in significance, reducing Britain’s industrial advantage.


Human capital is not exempt from these shifts in usefulness. Engineers became of great use whenever the technologies to develop siege weapons (as well as the capital and organization to build them) became available to states; Roman and Chinese armies of antiquity employed great numbers of siege engineers. Similarly, architects were commissioned whenever the means of building elaborate structures became available; the Renaissance abounds with examples of this. 


Thus, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (or more aptly the Digital Revolution) will enact unique shifts in the usefulness of workers and resources alike, thanks to the nature of the technology involved: the computer. Though Drucker passed away in 2005, he foresaw the rise of artificial intelligence within his predictions about the computer in “What the Computer Will be Telling You” (date unknown), calling out its potential to analyze data akin to what artificial intelligence does nowadays.


This brings meaningful shifts for all levels of human labor. The combination of computing with robotic technology and affordability has made it possible for unskilled labor to be replaced en masse, reducing the use for unskilled labor. Even lower-level white collar jobs like clerks and accountants face stiff competition given their work is repetitive at a digital level and liable to be replaced by artificial intelligence. The one field of employment that is expanded as a result of these technologies is the knowledge worker. Partially born from the growth of computing technology, partially an existing beneficiary of said technology, the knowledge worker performs their work on the premise that the grunt work of crunching numbers and calculating growth metrics can be easily done by the tools at their disposal.


In an economy where physical production is a linear metric of economic performance, the knowledge worker has limited use. In such an economy that furthermore relies on a chain of human calculators and analog communication, the knowledge worker is extremely limited in capability and is thus not a significant factor in economic output. Hence why the knowledge worker has only risen to prominence within postindustrial economies.

Thus, the American economy is especially susceptible to shifts in usefulness as one of the most postindustrial economies on the planet. This has significant consequences for its future economic prospects. For one, it was able to reach its status as a global powerhouse due to the growth of its giant manufacturing base, which took place between the Civil War and World War II. Its further investment in STEM education, priority on innovation, and corporate dominance during the Cold War allowed it to keep its top position throughout the 20th century. However, the Fourth Industrial Revolution has introduced some subtle changes to the economic calculus that necessitate reform of the current system. 


For one, even though the American economy is already heavily service-based, the automation of tasks at the lower level combined with the augmentation of capabilities in the office means the labor shift is geared towards prioritizing higher educated workers as primary human factors of economic output. Given much of the service sector is not necessarily aligned with knowledge work, the usefulness of the service sector in general is skewed upwards in terms of human capital. 


For another, the productivity of the knowledge worker rests with both production and mentality. Drucker stressed the autonomy of the knowledge worker as one of their defining characteristics, made possible by the powers of computing and AI. Because the complex calculations are automated by these technologies, that leaves the decision-making up to the human. Of course, the knowledge worker must still be trained in the technical skills required to use the tools at their disposal. However, the decision-making facilities of the knowledge worker, including foresight and rationality, matter greatly if they are to efficiently perform their job. 


The future competitiveness of the American economy, and by extension many other economies, is dependent upon this. In its manufacturing heyday, the United States was the world’s superpower due to its towering advantage in scale over its European counterparts and the absolute lack of industrialization elsewhere in the world. During the Cold War, the United States once again strode the world economically due to sheer scale, concentration of capital, and worker efficiency. Now, however, economic disparities in the world have narrowed. After rapid industrial development in the twentieth century, East Asia has caught up to America in terms of economic development and has even surpassed it in certain fields like semiconductors. Developing nations, most notably the BRICS countries, have become manufacturing leaders. China in particular has bridged being both the “world’s factory” and a center of highly educated talent. What this all means is that the United States cannot rely on simple scale and the virtue of being the earliest as it did in the past. The combination of knowledge workers requiring extensive high-quality rearing and the dilapidated nature of American institutions like education and infrastructure puts the country at risk of losing its economic edge in the world. 

However, the American economy is not consequently destined to decay. Its national culture of pursuing individual advancement and success is well-fitted for the world of the knowledge worker. It already possesses a well-educated population that has been used to living in a developed economy for a century. It holds the largest concentration of financial capital in the world. While this by no means encourages complacency, it simply means the country must pursue a different utilization of its resources in order to keep its current economic position in the world. It cannot compete in human numbers, for India and China boast populations far larger and countries like Indonesia and Nigeria are quickly catching up. It cannot compete in manufacturing, as Brazil and China are now the biggest producers of the commodities that America dominated over a century ago. Even in higher-tech industries like semiconductor chips, countries like South Korea and Taiwan have demonstrated that small populations can easily and quickly trounce less-prepared competitors many times their sizes, as the United States has learned of late. So ultimately, the United States ought to perceive that through the synergy of its relative strengths in all the aforementioned fields with investment into cultivating a robust knowledge worker base, it will be best positioned to retain its premier status as a global economic leader.


In conclusion, the American economy will have difficulties adjusting to this new reality in spite of its current advantages in education and economic maturity. What matters most - not only for the United States but for the other economies of the world - is that with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the usefulness of labor will play a defining role in each country’s economic standings. Those that grasp this concept will prosper, while those that neglect it will fall behind. The use of the knowledge worker, and subsequently the highest level of human capital, will become top priority.


References


Drucker, P. F. (1995) “What the Computer will be Telling You” – in People and Performance (Routledge)




By Byron Ramirez Ph.D. February 11, 2025
Peter Drucker escribió extensamente sobre las funciones y responsabilidades de los gerentes y sobre los principios que podrían ayudar a mejorar el desempeño organizacional. En sus obras, Drucker infiere que los individuos que conforman la organización deben cultivar el autoconocimiento, la autoconciencia y desarrollar sus habilidades a través de la aplicación. Aprendemos por primera vez sobre el concepto de la gestión como arte liberal en el libro de Drucker, "The New Realities". En este texto, Drucker se refiere a la gestión como arte liberal: "La gestión es, por lo tanto, lo que la tradición solía llamar un arte liberal - 'liberal' porque trata con los fundamentos del conocimiento, el autoconocimiento, la sabiduría y el liderazgo; 'arte' porque trata con la práctica y la aplicación. Los gerentes recurren a todos los conocimientos e ideas de las humanidades y las ciencias sociales - en la psicología y la filosofía, en la economía y la historia, en las ciencias físicas y la ética. Pero deben enfocar este conocimiento en la efectividad y los resultados." (Drucker, 1989) Drucker argumentó que debemos reconocer que la naturaleza humana es imperfecta, pero que, a través de la observación y la contemplación, y mucha, mucha práctica, la toma de decisiones puede mejorarse. Con el tiempo, a medida que las personas practican la gestión de manera ética y responsable, la comunidad en general se beneficia de las decisiones tomadas en organizaciones responsables y socialmente conscientes. La gestión como arte liberal es un concepto que caracteriza una filosofía, una que se basa en los elementos del conocimiento, el autoconocimiento, la sabiduría y el liderazgo. Esta filosofía implica que cualquier individuo tiene el potencial de crecer y desarrollarse, y convertirse en un gerente efectivo, siempre y cuando este individuo se tome el tiempo para reflexionar, desarrollar habilidades y conocimientos, y adquirir continuamente experiencias que enriquecerán su perspectiva sobre cómo liderar eficazmente a otras personas. Sin embargo, Drucker reconoció que el interés propio interrumpe y, en los peores casos, impide y restringe los esfuerzos de los demás. Como tal, el gerente debe desarrollar la capacidad de observar lo que está ocurriendo dentro y fuera de la organización. Al mismo tiempo, la persona debe desarrollar la autoconciencia y la capacidad de reflexionar sobre su propio comportamiento y las decisiones que toma. Esto incluye analizar cómo las decisiones pueden influir en las acciones y el comportamiento de los demás. Es a través de la autorreflexión y la conciencia que podemos notar lo que ha funcionado, lo que no y lo que podríamos hacer de manera diferente la próxima vez que surja otra situación. Un gerente puede desarrollar inteligencia emocional, utilizando el concepto de Daniel Goleman. Y en el contexto de la gestión como arte liberal, esto es lo que llamaríamos autoconocimiento. Un gerente puede volverse más efectivo y llegar a apoyar el crecimiento y desarrollo de los demás, siempre que aprenda a valorar a las personas por quienes son, y les permita espacio para ser ellos mismos. Pero para hacer esto, el gerente debe aprender a escuchar a los demás, respetarlos y reconocer sus preocupaciones y necesidades. También es importante aprovechar las ideas y sugerencias de las personas para ayudar a encontrar soluciones. Esta es un axioma importante dentro de la gestión como arte liberal. Otro elemento clave de la gestión como arte liberal es la noción de que el individuo debe construir conocimiento. Como tal, la persona debe buscar activamente información, datos, hechos e historias que puedan ayudar a aumentar el conocimiento. Además, podemos mejorar nuestras habilidades gerenciales y decisiones aplicando una perspectiva transdisciplinaria para resolver problemas. La perspectiva transdisciplinaria proporciona al individuo una visión integrada y más holística que combina diferentes puntos de vista de las artes, las humanidades y la ciencia. Drucker postuló que podemos aprender leyendo historia, filosofía y economía, y que la reconciliación de ideas de múltiples disciplinas puede ser beneficiosa para determinar el mejor curso de acción. Drucker sugirió que la consideración cuidadosa de diferentes alternativas y efectos posteriores, contingencias y resultados potenciales, mejoraría las decisiones y permitiría que el individuo se convierta en un tomador de decisiones más efectivo. Según la gestión como arte liberal, es importante que consideremos cómo nuestras acciones influirán en los demás y que asumamos la responsabilidad de nuestras acciones. La gestión como arte liberal postula que las personas se definen a sí mismas (y sirven a la sociedad) a través de la acción responsable. Esto significa que los gerentes efectivos actuarán de manera responsable y con ética, y utilizarán su estatus y poder para promover el bienestar de la organización y su gente. Esto infiere que el individuo actuará con el mejor interés de la organización (y sus partes interesadas) en mente. Actuar con buen juicio, tener lucidez y una mejor comprensión de las situaciones y contextos es lo que llamaríamos ejercer la sabiduría. Para involucrar a las personas y construir mejores organizaciones, y en última instancia contribuir a lo que Drucker llamó una "sociedad funcional", es vital que tratemos a todas las personas dentro de la organización con respeto y dignidad. Y que ayudemos a las personas a crecer y desarrollarse y a encontrar significado en lo que hacen. Así es como se construyen las grandes organizaciones. Esto es lo que llamaríamos liderazgo. Y los líderes dentro de la organización deben ser conscientes de que el mundo evoluciona y que algunas cosas deben cambiar, mientras que otras deben mantenerse. Esto significa equilibrar el cambio y la continuidad y reconocer qué proceso o actividad necesita ser renovado, y cuál otra práctica necesita ser preservada.  La gestión como arte liberal está arraigada en la práctica y la aplicación, en la autorreflexión, en tratar a las personas con dignidad y respeto, y en usar un lente transdisciplinario para ayudar a mejorar las decisiones. Se necesita tiempo para lograr resultados y construir grandes organizaciones. Pero se puede lograr. Y las organizaciones cuyos gerentes pueden practicar y aplicar, y reflexionar y aprender continuamente de sus acciones, tienen más probabilidades de ayudar a construir una mejor comunidad y una sociedad funcional y próspera. Referencias Drucker, Peter F. (2003) A Functioning Society (Routledge, London and New York) Drucker, Peter F. (1989) The New Realities: in Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View (New York: Harper & Row) Goleman, Daniel. (2007) Emotional Intelligence. 10th ed., Bantam Books.
By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. February 7, 2025
“What does ‘Capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money? And what do ‘Free Markets’ mean when knowledge workers – and no one else can ‘own’ knowledge – are the true assets?” (Peter Drucker, 1999). This issue of my newsletter focuses on features of today’s knowledge work, and what knowledge work might look like in the future. In part one, I discussed some of the challenges associated with measuring knowledge worker productivity. In this installment, I’ll take up Drucker’s concept of “Post-Capitalist Society” and what it might mean for knowledge work in the 21st century. Fear not; this will not be an academic treatise on Marx or Marxism. But central to an understanding of our knowledge-based society is some sense of how previous industrial society was configured and structured. As I argued in the last installment of this newsletter, part of our difficulty with measuring knowledge worker productivity is that we still use the language of industrial capitalism: we measure productivity in terms of output, particularly in quantity. We lack a more modern understanding of what productivity looks like. Why? Marx and Capitalism Marx saw capitalism as a stage in history, as part of a larger pageant of human conflict. In The German Ideology (1845), Marx critiques the idealism of German philosophy as locked in the realm of thought instead of material reality. It is time, he argues, for German philosophers to stop simply criticizing each other regarding implications of spiritual matters (the nature of knowledge, etc.) but rather to address the realities of material life. Marx was reacting to the decline of Hegelian thought, and transformed Hegel’s spiritual dialectic model into dialectical materialism. For Hegel, human development was a process of conflict at the spiritual level, when human understanding is challenged by contradicting experiences and events, leading to a new level of awareness, all guided by “Geist”. Marx took this out of the spiritual realm and grounded it in worldly events; his dialectic model was still one of human transformation and development, but it morphed into a model of class conflict. Dialectical materialism involved observable conflicts in social conditions and economic status that would then be acted upon to create a new social order. Like Drucker, Marx was a social theorist, and was reacting to the dramatic changes he saw happening in his time. Marx and his associate Engels observed the transformation from a rural to an industrial society and the associated social upheavals. Marx and Engels focused on the shift from an economy where value was derived from labor to one that relied on machines and money (capital) to produce the material needs of human beings. The culmination of their efforts was Marx’s massive work, The Capital (Das Kapital), published in three volumes in 1867, 1884, and 1894. The work is an intricate analysis of capitalism as an economic system as well as a social structure. There is no substitute for actually reading the text, but, for our purposes here, Marx had several key points that are germane to our discussion of today’s knowledge society: 1. Labor theory of value : Marx challenged utilitarian viewpoints of value, stating that the value of products lies not in their satisfaction of human wants, but in the human labor used to produce them. Value is in production, not in the end-user’s perception of value. 2. Ownership of means of production : In earlier rural societies (at least those with free labor), labor owned the means of production (its own work). Under capitalism, a ruling class owned the machinery and financial instruments (the capital) necessary to production. They also, in fact, own the labor, as workers no longer have a say in their hours, working conditions, etc. Owners derive unearned income from the labor of workers who are under their control. 3. Alienation: The process of industrial production involves an increasing deskilling of work, meaning workers have less of an association with the larger purpose of the process or output. As labor is divided into more specialized functions, there is increased alienation. 4. Dialectical materialism : As capitalism increases social conflict (class conflict), it sows the seeds of its own demise. It is part of Marx’s historical theory of capitalism as one stage in human development. Eventually, socialism will replace capitalism, and workers will own the means of production, ushering in a new social order. Post-Capitalist Society In 1993, Drucker published Post-Capitalist Society, a book that advances a bold argument about Marx’s theories and the trajectories of history. It was one of his more successful books, and I think he left us with much to think about as we navigate the waters of the new or next knowledge society. Drucker looks back on Marx’s evaluation of capitalism with an historical view, much like Marx looked at Hegelian and other assessments of society in his time. In this sense, Drucker follows in the tradition of European theorists critiquing the ideas of the past, using an historical argument. According to Drucker, the manufacturing economy framed the conversation around society, economics, and politics from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Marx’s labor theory of value dominated discussions, as workers competed to have equal power and voice with owners (capitalists). However, as Drucker argues, the owners of capital (the financial titans of industry) peaked by the First World War, and were replaced by professional managers by the 1950s. The classic dialectic between labor and capital was no longer relevant by the 1950s, as “capitalists” no longer existed. Drucker posits that by the 1970s, “capital” would be in the hands of the workers themselves in the form of pensions, mutual funds, and other collective methods of corporate ownership. According to Drucker, the factors of production were no longer labor or capital, but knowledge by the mid-20thcentury. Knowledge workers owned the capital (pension funds, and later 401ks) and also owned the means/tools of production (knowledge). This perspective upended not only traditional notions of capitalism as viewing labor and capital as the primary inputs for production, but also upset the social order. Moreover, we faced a new economic challenge of measuring productivity in a new way (related to knowledge) but also a social challenge as the old service (manual labor) workers would be left behind. Furthermore, we would face a dichotomy between intellectuals and managers. Both of these conflicts are akin to what Marx alluded to in his reference to dialectical materialism. In essence, while highly critical of Marx, Drucker used a version of Marxist theory to postulate the existence of a “post-capitalist society.” Drucker was no fan of Marx but uses an historical argument and similar language about analysis of inputs (labor and capital, but in Drucker’s case, knowledge). The difference is that Drucker is not engaging in a dialectical process (and not one focused on material concerns alone). According to Drucker, one of the primary reasons that Marx’s worldwide proletarian revolution failed to materialize was the inadequacy of his model of “economic man” (his sole emphasis on material satisfaction as an indicator of society’s wellbeing). Drucker rejected this model of society, arguing for an industrial model of society where the manufacturing plant community provided meaning to the worker. Crucial to defeating the forces of totalitarianism (and Marxism, for that matter) was providing individuals in society with status and function . Status gives people a place in the social structure, whereas function provides individuals with a purpose. Economic meaning was not enough; people needed this larger sense of individual and community meaning. In the early twentieth century, because of the incredible gains in manufacturing productivity, capitalism emerged as the dominant system. However, as society moved away from industrial employment towards knowledge work, this new post-capitalist society presented new challenges – including the possibility for social disorder. Thus, Drucker turned to understanding the “ knowledge society ”, a new stage in human development. According to his analysis, what were the new challenges inherent in this new knowledge society? As we saw in the previous installment of this issue, knowledge worker productivity and its measurement represented one such challenge – one we still face. Drucker also wrestled with questions of worker motivation, social disorder, and compensation disparities. In our next installment, we’ll expand on Drucker’s concerns and see how they might help us understand where we are with our current knowledge society and the challenges we face. 
By Michael Cortrite, Ph.D. February 7, 2025
One cannot manage change. One can only be ahead of it…In a period of upheavals, such as the one we are living in, change is the norm. To be sure, it is painful and risky, and above all, it requires a great deal of very hard work. But unless it is seen as the task of the organization to lead change, the organization…will not survive. Peter Drucker in Management Challenges for the 21 st Century (2001) Alan George Lafley was the CEO of Proctor and Gamble (P&G) from 2000 to 2010 and 2013 to 2016. The Proctor and Gamble Company is a consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was founded in 1837. Today, Proctor and Gamble is healthy and is ranked 55 th in the Forbes Global 2000. In 2000, just before Lafley was appointed CEO, P&G stock dropped by almost 30% in one day, and the next week, it dropped another 11%. P&G lost $85 billion in market capitalization a few months later. Lafley described it as a crisis of confidence; inside the organization, employees were blaming each other, and outside the organization, market analysts and investors were surprised and angry. Retirees were angry over losing half of their profit-sharing nest eggs. The news media used headlines such as “P and G Investor Confidence Shot”, “Trouble in Brand City,” and “Does P&G Still Matter?” It appeared that a major, almost 200-year-old company, was in danger of going out of business. Fortunately, Lafley had the advantage of being familiar with Peter Drucker’s writings and was able to talk with him in person. What follows is an accounting of Lafley's actions using his own experience (P&G was his first CEO job) along with Peter Drucker’s writing and personal advice on sustainability. · One of Drucker’s last works was answering the question, “What is the work of the CEO?” Lafley realized that the CEO is singularly held accountable for the performance and results of the company and acted accordingly. · Trust is needed for sustainability. Trust at P&G had evolved to mean that employees could rely on the company for lifetime jobs. Lafley redefined it as consumers’ trust in the company’s brands and shareholders’ trust in its value as a long-term investment. · The consumer is boss. This mindset was emphasized to all employees. Another more famous Drucker Quote is, “The purpose of a business is to create a customer.” Lafley turned around the company-wide habit of losing touch with customers by emphasizing employees at all levels getting closer to customers. · Lafley listened to Drucker that a company must decide what business you are in (or not in). Lafley took the advice and after careful analysis caused P&G to keep some products and businesses, eliminate some products and businesses, and add some products and businesses. This was also the advice Drucker gave to Jack Welch, General Electric CEO, a few years earlier about streamlining the company by focusing on where to compete and where not to compete. Lafley expanded Drucker’s advice by adding his own statement on sustainability; “We must work on the present to earn the right to invest in the future.” · As published in the Wall Street Journal in January 2005 (The American CEO) Drucker observed that we don’t completely understand the unique role of the CEO; What is the work that only they can do and that they must do? The CEO has the power and the ultimate responsibility for business sustainability. The CEO is the link between the inside of the organization and the outside of the organization. He or she alone experiences the meaningful “outside” the organization and is responsible for understanding it, interpreting it, advocating for it, and presenting it in a way that enables sustainable sales, profit, and total shareholder return. For Lafley, “meaningful outside” can include several stakeholder classes, but it emphasizes the idea that the “Consumer is Boss.” Lafely saw that over the years, P&G employees had been drawn to internal interests, and inward focus is the enemy of growth. It is the CEO’s job to deal with outside stakeholders and have a deep understanding of their competing interests, as well as how those interests correspond with the capabilities and limitations of the organization. And Lafley went to work on reinvigorating focus on “outside the organization stakeholders” while keeping in mind that employees are a company’s most valuable asset. Strengthening relationships with analysts and investors resulted in a better understanding of their wants and needs. · Drucker said that effective CEOs make sure that the performing people are allocated to opportunities, rather than only problems. Lafley took this advice to heart and also reiterated the importance of succession planning. · Avoiding complacency in an organization is a must. The CEO should always ask, “Are we winning with those who matter most and against the very best?” The CEO should ensure that the company’s values, purpose, and standards stay relevant for the present and the future and for the businesses the company is in. CODA When looking at overall company sustainability, the difference in governance between Jack Welch of General Electric and A.G. Lafley of Proctor and Gamble is dramatic This is a potential subject for further research on sustainability. In the leadership literature Lafley is generally rated as a hands-on people person who consistently strived to develop leadership in his employees. He was respectful of employees and valued listening to them. He could be described as a servant leader or a follower of Peter Drucker’s management as a liberal art leadership style. Welch was very competitive and was also described as having a combative and aggressive personality. He stressed shareholder value and the absolute necessity of financial performance. In the name of cost-cutting, he would occasionally order massive layoffs, which caused employee resentment and mistrust. His mantra of “Win at Any Cost” has been said to damage the ethical behavior of employees. When Lafley and Welch were CEOs of their respective companies, the companies thrived. When Welch left GE in 2001 the company had “disappointing results for 2 decades.” When Lafley left P&G in 2016 the company continued to thrive and is still highly rated. Bibliography Silva, A. 2015. What Can We Learn from Great Business Leaders? Journal of Leadership Studies. 23 January 2015. Donlon, J. 2007. Proctor and Gamble. Chief Executive. Iss. 30. December 2007. 58-62. Lafley, A. G. (2009) What Only the CEO Can Do. Harvard Business Review, May 2009
Show More
Share by: