A Functioning Society and Management as a Liberal Art — Peter Drucker’s Beliefs and Values

Minglo Shao

PUBLISHED:

June 20, 2020

“To make our institutions perform responsibly, autonomously, and on a high level of achievement is thus the only safeguard of freedom and dignity in the pluralist society of institutions. Performing, responsible management is the alternative to tyranny and our only protection against it”. - Peter F. Drucker


World-renowned as “the father of modern management”, Peter Drucker believed that although he was famous for establishing management as a discipline, he was actually a “social ecologist”, and his real concern was the individual’s existence in the social environment. In Drucker’s view, management was a newly emerging tool for improving society and life. He was the author of 39 books, only 15 of which dealt with management. The others were related to community, society, and polity. Only two books —Management for Results and Innovation and Entrepreneurship —were devoted to business management.


Drucker knew that human nature is imperfect, so nothing humans create, including the societies they design, can be perfect. He didn’t hold high expectations or ideals for society; he only hoped that it could be less painful and more tolerant. However, a society still has to have basic functions; it has to provide the people living in it with the conditions for normal life and work, and it has to give individuals identity and status. These functions or conditions are necessary for a society in the same way that normal functions are necessary for a living body.


It is worth noting that society is not the same as nation-state, because “nation-state(government)” and “family” cannot provide the necessary functions of a society. This is evidenced by the fact that some powerful countries have only fragile and fragmented societies. In Drucker’s view, in the industrial age, a normal functioning society must consist of at least three types of institutions: government, business, and non-profit, each of which plays a different and unique role. Individual organizations within each of those categories must have distinctive performances, which requires them to have power centers and decision-making mechanisms. The power centers and decision-making mechanisms should give each individual a place within the organization, allowing them to use their strengths, to play a part and contribute, therefore obtaining livelihood, identity, and status. In the past, nation-state did not have such power centers or decision-making mechanisms; in other words, “management” is the new “polity”. (Drucker collectively refers to all three power centers as “polity”: management systems of business, management systems of nonprofit institutions, and governmental systems of nation-state, because these three sectors all hold power but each has different objectives. Business and non-profit organizations have the power to allocate society’s resources in order to provide specific products and services; the government has the power to arbitrate and intervene to maintain fairness and justice throughout society).


Near Claremont University in the United States, there is a small Drucker memorial — the Drucker House Museum — in what was once Peter Drucker’s California home. On entering the museum, one sees a famous quote in a prominent place facing the entrance of the living room:


“To make our institutions perform responsibly, autonomously, and on a high level of achievement is thus the only safeguard of freedom and dignity in the pluralist society of institutions. Performing, responsible management is the alternative to tyranny and our only protection against it”.


When the museum opened, the Drucker Institute’s colleagues asked themselves, if they were to choose a quote from Drucker’s publications that sums up the significance of his work to the world, what would it be? They eventually chose the above passage.


If you are familiar with Drucker’s life and how his beliefs and values were formed, you’ll surely agree with their choice. From The End of Economic Man, his first book, to A Functioning Society, the last volume that he completed independently, a common thread runs through all his work: resistance to totalitarianism and defense of the individual’s freedom and dignity.


There is a great difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. It was not until the 20th century, with the rapid advancement of human knowledge and capabilities, that conditions arose for the centuries-old tradition of authoritarianism to mutate into totalitarianism. Totalitarianism seeks to thoroughly manipulate and control every human being, flesh and spirit, to expunge their compassion and conscience, transforming them into humanoid machines that fulfill the dreams of individual totalitarian rulers. Under totalitarian rule, loyalty to leaders is everything; personal thoughts, feelings, desires, and goals are superfluous and must be eliminated. The 20th century brought wars, revolutions, and movements that caused unprecedented disasters and human suffering. Whether Nazism (National Socialism), Fascism, or Communism, all are “masterpieces” of totalitarianism. The rise of Hitler and Nazism, which the young Drucker lived through, is among them. To best understand how Drucker’s experiences influenced his beliefs and values, read his Adventures of a Bystander. To see what totalitarianism is and why the masses support it, read his The End of Economic Man, with the subtitle “The Origins of Totalitarianism”.


Fortunately, history’s evolution has not always been so dispiriting. Since the Industrial Revolution, especially from the 1800s onward, in the last 200 years, productivity has increased dramatically, not only creating vast material wealth but also bringing profound changes in the social structure. Eighty years ago, Drucker perceived and pointed out the formation of a new pluralistic, organizational society: Emerging enterprises and nonprofit institutions fill the gaps and empty spaces between “nation-state” (government) and “family” in the social structure of the past.


Based on that foundation, universal education and the rise of the knowledge worker are creating a knowledge economy and a knowledge society, and information technology has accelerated all these changes. It should be noted that “knowledge society” and “knowledge worker” are terms Drucker coined. “Knowledge workers” broadly refers to those who possess and apply specialized knowledge and work to create useful products and services for society. This includes entrepreneurs and executives, professionals, and technicians in any organization, as well as independent professionals, such as accountants, lawyers, consultants, trainers, and so on. Today, in the 21st century, owing to the development of knowledge and the ever-widening area to which it is applied, individuals and individual institutions are no longer alone and helpless. Having mastered certain types of knowledge, they have freedom of choice to decide where and how to work and the power to influence others. Knowledge workers and the knowledge-based organizations they formed no longer resemble traditional intellectuals. Knowledge workers’ unique characteristics are their independence and autonomy. They can integrate resources, build their own organizations or start new businesses, create value, and foster economic, social, cultural, and political changes. Traditional intellectuals depended on and were subject to government authorities, and could only act on platforms provided by those authorities.


This is an epoch-making, far-reaching change that has taken place not only in Western developed countries, Japan, and other democracies but also in many developing countries still under authoritarian or even totalitarian rule, such as in today’s China. In totalitarian countries, rulers instinctively and inevitably treat independent and autonomous organizations and knowledge workers as potential threats, suppressing or even banning them. But this can have only one consequence: the hollowing out of society and the economy, which in turn will undermine the basis on which any regime depends, ultimately leading to totalitarianism's collapse. To put it in popular terms, the wave of freedom and democracy now sweeping the world is irresistible; totalitarian rulers, no matter how ostensibly powerful and arrogant, will inevitably be drowned by it.


A healthy modern society is made up of pluralistic organizations. Of the three organizational categories — government, business, and nonprofit; businesses and nonprofits are comparatively more constrained by the market, the public, and the government. Therefore, their managements are less likely than the government to take the road to totalitarian rule (except for businesses and nonprofits that are de facto government proxies). That’s why, in Drucker’s view, businesses and nonprofits are more important and worthy of hope than governments. Nonetheless, they may still fail to achieve the “performing, responsible” operation that Drucker expects, either due to lack of management or mismanagement, providing space and opportunity for totalitarian governments to monopolize social resources and strip individuals’ rights. The rise of knowledge workers in all organizations, including the Internet-era’s virtual work community, has provided the foundation and conditions for a new era of management, posing a challenge to the traditional “carrot-and-stick” approach to management. In response to this reality, Drucker researched, established, and constantly strove to improve the discipline of modern management.


On January 18, 1999, when he was almost 90 years old, Drucker answered the question, “What is my most important contribution?” This is what he wrote:


“That I focus this discipline (management) on People and Power; on Values, Structure and Constitution; AND ABOVE ALL ON RESPONSIBILITIES - that is focused the Discipline of Management on Management as a truly LIBERAL ART”.


Dubbing management discipline a “liberal art” was Drucker’s brainchild, reflecting his unique perspective on management. This is obviously important, but in his many works, there is little further explanation of it. The most complete exposition is found in the fifteenth chapter of his book The New Realities, entitled "Management as Social Function and Liberal Art”:


“Thirty years ago, the English scientist and novelist C.P. Snow talked of the ‘two cultures’ of contemporary society. Management, however, fits neither Snow’s ‘humanist’ or his ‘scientist.’ It deals with action and application; and its test is results. This makes it a technology. But management also deals with people, their values, their growth and development—and this makes it a humanity. So does it concern with, and impact on, social structure and the community. Indeed as been learnt by everyone who, like this author, has been working with managers of all kinds of institutions for long years, management is deeply involved in spiritual concerns—the nature of man, good and evil.


Management is thus what tradition used to call a liberal art: ‘liberal’ because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; ‘art’ because it is practice and application. Managers draw on all the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences—on psychology and philosophy, on economics and on history, on the physical sciences and on ethics. But they have to focus this knowledge on effectiveness and results—on healing a sick patient, teaching a student, building a bridge, designing and selling a ‘user-friendly’ software program”.


As one who has many years of practical management experience and has read nearly all of Drucker’s works, I have often pondered why Drucker called management a “liberal art”? I finally realized that this was not just a beautiful and unconventional act but was a characterization of management; it revealed management’s essence and pointed out the proper direction for managerial efforts. At a minimum, this includes the following implications:


First, the most fundamental management issue, or the key to management, is how managers and individual knowledge workers regard and handle the relationship between people and power. Drucker was a Christian. His faith and his life experiences were mutually confirming and had a profound impact on his research and writing. In his view, man should not have power. Only humankind’s creator, God, master of all things, has power. The Creator is always superior to humans. After all, human nature is weak and cannot resist the temptation to acquire power or withstand its trials. Therefore, a person can only possess authority. He is authorized by the Creator because of his character, knowledge, and ability, which are effective only at a certain stage and in certain actions. This is true not only for individuals but for the entire human race. In democratic countries, “the people are sovereign”; their power is also a kind of authorization granted by the Creator. Under this authorization, human beings are only “tools”—they have free will but must also accept responsibility. Human beings are the Creator’s tools and they cannot become masters; They cannot manipulate and control fellow humans according to their own intentions, nor should they become tools for the manipulation and control of others. Only by recognizing this will people gain both humility and a sense of responsibility; only then will fairness and justice—which the Creator alone commands and which can only summon and be revealed to humans—guide their actions. Moreover, people must constantly examine themselves and willingly conform to society's norms and constraints. 


Second, although human nature is imperfect, every person comes from the Creator and bears his image and good intentions. In this sense, they are all equal to each other, all have their value, their creative abilities, and their functions, and should be respected, and encouraged to create. As stated in the American Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, and every person has innate, self-evident and inalienable rights. The fundamental reason why “Drucker’s” management discipline can make a difference stems from just this conviction. Does one believe that every person has goodwill and potential? And does one thus really treat people equally? These core values and convictions ultimately determine whether one can respond to Drucker’s management knowledge and whether one can understand and implement it.


Third, in knowledge societies and knowledge organizations, every worker, to some extent, is both a knowledge worker and an executive. In that, they can use their expertise to authoritatively influence other people and organizations — knowledge is power. But power must be governed by responsibility. And performance and results indicate how effective an executive has been in exercising responsibility. Power that accounts to performance and results is legitimate, that is, it is represents authorized authority; otherwise, it becomes “might”, which Drucker is firmly opposed to. The importance of performance and results lies not only in economic and material aspects but also in the psychological aspects that people tend to overlook. If managers and leaders continually fail to solve real issues, a despairing public will irrationally choose to rely on and obey powers that promise a “perfect society”, and willingly surrender their freedom and dignity. This is why Drucker repeatedly warned that if a management fails, totalitarianism will take its place.


Fourth, does management have other responsibilities besides getting organizations to achieve performance and results? Or to put it another way, are performance and results limited to quantifiable economic gains and wealth? In addition to providing customers with inexpensive, high-quality products and services, and earning reasonable profits for shareholders, can an industrial or commercial enterprise become a good, responsible “social citizen”? Can it help its employees enhance their character and competence, turning the organization into a “moral community”? This might seem too demanding, but it is reasonable. More than ten years ago, I worked with a multinational logistics corporation that asked itself and found it was possible to put it into practice. This means that we must learn to design moral and ethical demands and economic goals into the same workflow, the same set of weighing systems, and into every method, tool, and model of operation. Today, it is gratifying that more and more organizations are beginning to take this issue seriously and responding positively to it in their respective fields.


Fifth, “博雅技藝的管理” (management as a liberal art) or “博雅管理” (liberal-art management) are lovely Chinese translations, but they’re a bit problematic. Judged from the three requirements of translation — 信 xin (fidelity), 達 da (clarity and flow), and 雅 ya (elegance), the rendering is elegant but is not faithful enough to the original. Translated directly into Chinese, “liberal art” would be “free art” (自由的技藝); that is, freedom from restraints, a liberal art that lets people throw off restraints and attain spiritual and physical freedom. To put it another way, to become a free person, one must master an art. In ancient Greece and Rome, only “freemen” were permitted to learn such knowledge and skills; slaves neither needed nor were permitted to study them, because only “freemen” bore the exalted responsibilities of a citizen. However, in the earliest traditional Chinese-character editions of Drucker’s works, “liberal art” was translated as 博雅藝術 boya yishu, probably to take advantage of the positive connotations that terminology has in the Chinese language. I feel that “自由的技藝” (free art) is closer to the original English meaning. “Liberal” is freed. “Art” can be translated as 藝術 yishu, but management must be applied, it must perform and produce results, so it is first and foremost a “skill (技能)”. On the other hand, the management’s object is people’s working. When dealing with people, managers must face the good and evil inherent in human nature, as well as people's ideas — emotional and rational — which can change on a moment’s notice. They also must face the same issues within themselves. When viewed from this angle, management is an “art” involving subjective judgment. Therefore, “art” is more suitably interpreted as技藝. “Liberal” (自由) and “art” (技藝) combined is “liberal art” (自由的技藝).


Finally, I’d like to say, the reason I've taken such pains in translating “liberal art” is not just to produce a “correct” Chinese equivalent. More importantly, it’s to stress that management is not what people commonly mistake it for: a study of how to succeed, either personally or organizationally. Its aim is not to help an enterprise make money or achieve the highest efficiency in production; nor is its aim to help a non-profit organization win a good public reputation. Management aims to allow every person to live in a healthier, less harmful and painful human society and community. It is to allow every worker to freely choose the responsibility one is willing to bear in that society or community, according to one's innate goodwill and potential, to freely use one's talents to create value that is useful to others, thus fulfilling one’s responsibility. Moreover, in the process of that creative work, to live out human dignity and grow into a better and more capable person: They have pragmatic knowledge and skills, but are not arrogant or vain; they pursue psychological and spiritual sublimation, but are not jaded or cynical; they revere the sanctity of natural creation, but are not callous or cold-hearted. As a “social ecologist”, this is what Drucker defined and anticipated —"Management as a Liberal Art” or “liberal-art management”, the terms’ true meaning.


Minglo Shao

Licensee of the “Peter F. Drucker/Peter Drucker” brand in Taiwan and China

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part III

By Karen Linkletter, Ph.D. • August 20, 2025
Previously, I shared de Tocqueville’s concept of equality of condition and how it is manifesting in today’s perception that democracy has failed to deliver on its promise of economic and social equality for all. Promises of economic equality are impossible to fulfill; but democratic societies can and should offer all of their members dignity and a sense of purpose. In this final installment, I’ll share de Tocqueville’s prescriptions for shoring up the institutions of a democratic society – as well as some of his warnings about challenges that democracies face. Tendency Towards Strong Authority According to de Tocqueville, the love of equality found in democracies leads to a tendency towards favoring strong, centralized governmental power. As conditions become more equal, “individuals seem of less and society of greater importance” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 290). This leads to what he refers to as “uniformity of legislation”: the belief that laws and rules should be applied uniformly to everyone across society. Nuance and complexity are lost, and individual difference is subsumed to a concept akin to Rousseau’s General Will (which Drucker treated with the utmost disdain). The United States that de Tocqueville visited was still relatively rural and homogenous in 1830, but there certainly were tensions brewing with respect to slavery, the role of women in society, and the balance between manufacturing and agriculture in the economy. Today, the United States at times stresses the importance of strong federal power, usually to assert law and order or negotiate with other sovereign nations, but at other times lauds the role of individuals having a voice in state and local matters, such as educational curriculum and budgetary control. This tension between the desire for central authority and states’ rights has a long history and continues to impact legislative and other matters. Role of the Judiciary De Tocqueville holds up the Constitution as an exemplary system of checks and balances to counter this tendency towards the power of the “despotic majority.” James Madison famously warned of “tyranny of the majority” in his Federalist Paper Number 10. De Tocqueville favored the system of federalism, which limited the powers of the federal government to those functions that were best suited to a central power and delegated the rest to the states. He stated that this allowed “the Union to combine the power of a great republic with the security of a small one” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 299). De Tocqueville was particularly impressed with the power given to the judiciary in the United States. He wrote extensively on our system of trial by jury, arguing that serving on a jury was a form of legal education for everyday people, and thus an important part of understanding the workings of the legal process enshrined in the Constitution. The judiciary, he said, “check and direct the impulses of the majority without stopping its activity” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 299). The role of the courts in the United States today is under challenge. Recent Supreme Court decisions have ceded the power of that body over the executive branch (see Trump v. CASA and Trump v. United States). However, federal courts continue to function to “check and direct” questionable actions through injunctions. Globally, an independent judiciary is seen as crucial to counter rising authoritarianism (Satterthwaite, 2022). The Art of Association Alexis de Tocqueville was fascinated by Americans’ affinity for local action. As a member of the French aristocracy, this was completely foreign to him. He observed Americans participating in local government, clubs, religious congregations, and reform organizations. He used New England as a model, remarking that the system instituted under Puritan rule (which involved self-government and autonomy) fostered a strong sense of local activism: “The New Englander is attached to his township not so much because he was born in it, but because it is a free and strong community, of which he is a member, and which deserves the care spent in managing it” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 66). Because local action bonded people to one another (in Drucker’s words, provided status and function), they feel a sense of purpose. This “art of association” that Americans demonstrated to de Tocqueville countered the tendency towards negative individualism and the despotism of the majority that he feared. Many authors have documented the increasing atomization of society and subsequent loss of social mixing that was the hallmark of American public life (see Galbraith, The Affluent Society, Putnam, Bowling Alone, and Bishop, The Big Sort). The rise of social media has only increased this tendency. To counter this reality, radio and television commentator Michael Smerconish created “The Mingle Project”, a series of events bringing diverse groups of people together to discuss topics of interest. Free Press De Tocqueville is well-known for advocating for a free press. It is, in fact, one of his core tenants of a functioning democracy: “to suppose that they [newspapers] only serve to protect freedom would be to diminish their importance: they maintain civilization” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 111). While he acknowledges the existence of “junk news”, he argues that there is much more good information than bad. De Tocqueville was particularly impressed with the wide range and number of newspapers available, particular smaller news outlets. As the primary information source of that era, newspapers allowed people to not only stay current on politics, but also to know of events they could attend. Perhaps most importantly, a free and diverse press sheds light on government, creating yet another possible guardrail against abuses of power. There is substantial research on the impact of declining local news, showing that it contributes to political polarization, lack of voter engagement, and reduced accountability in the public sector (see The state of local news and why it matters, American Journalism Project, https://www.theajp.org/news-insights/the-state-of-local-news-and-why-it-matters/). Declining circulation and advertising revenues have resulted in the closure of thousands of local media outlets despite the fact that most Americans have positive impressions of local journalists. Furthermore, fewer Americans are paying attention to local news, and the majority prefer to get their news from online forums such as Facebook or Nextdoor (Shearer et al., 2024). De Tocqueville’s Warnings It is clear that de Tocqueville saw rule of law, vibrant local organizations, and a healthy fourth estate as counterbalances to the tendency towards despotic rule by the majority and centralized power in democracies. He furthermore warned against two specific threats to democracy: capitalism’s ability to create a permanent social underclass, and citizen apathy. A Manufacturing Aristocracy In 1830, America’s economy was beginning its transition from one based on agriculture to one driven by industry. That transition would accelerate after the Civil War, but de Tocqueville remarked on the transformation that he saw during his visit. He was most concerned, however, with industrialization’s impact on society. As manufacturing became more specialized and routinized, the work itself became more mundane and unfulfilling; de Tocqueville describes to a tee what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would a decade or so later describe as “alienation of labor”: “as the workman improves, the man is degraded” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 158). Spending twenty years “making heads for pins” leaves the worker no room to exercise any curiosity or intelligence; instead, the worker is assigned “a certain place in society, beyond which he cannot go” (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 159). At the same time, manufacturing “raises the class of masters” to the point where worker and owner have nothing in common. Each fill a position that is fixed, and they are dependent upon each other. This, de Tocqueville argues, is an aristocracy. The creation of a “permanent inequality of conditions”, he claims, would spell the demise of democracy. History has shown his analysis to be sound. The Work of Democracy De Tocqueville described the slow delegation of decision making over everyday events from the individual to the state. People, he said, had two conflicting desires: “the want to be led, and they wish to remain free.” In order to fulfill both of these desires, they elect governments democratically but then surrender to “administrative despotism” in the form of rules and regulations that slowly erode individual decision making over matters (Tocqueville, 1835, p. 319). This is another byproduct of equality of conditions; if everyone is the same, then rules can apply to every aspect of life without considering individual circumstances. But of course, this is not the case, and so expanding limitations on judgment, de Tocqueville argues, reduces the ability of democratic citizens to think for themselves. In essence, he is warning that democratic governance requires engagement, involvement, and faith in people’s ability to govern themselves. Otherwise, democracies will simply become administrative tyrannies where the tyrants are duly elected. Conclusion Benjamin Franklin famously responded, when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” His comment captures the fragility of this form of government, and the responsibilities it construes on its citizens. Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations and warnings send a similar message to us. We have a responsibility to ensure that fair-minded journalism, judicial equity and oversight, and meaningful social and civic engagement are part and parcel of our democratic system of governance. If we fail to pay attention to the warnings from those who were closest to the early stages of democracy’s development, we stand a fair chance to lose what we have been bequeathed. Sources Bishop, B. (2008). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Galbraith, J.K. (1958). The affluent society. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Satterthwaite, M. (2022). The role of an independent judiciary in protecting rule of law. Asia Pacific Justice Forum, World Justice Project, Dec. 8-9, https://worldjusticeproject.org/news/role-independent-judiciary-protecting-rule-law. Shearer, E. et al. (2024). Americans’ changing relationship with local news. Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/05/07/americans-changing-relationship-with-local-news/. Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.

The Great Professional Recalibration: Rethinking Work in the Age of Autonomy and AI

By Byron Ramirez Ph.D. • July 5, 2025
Over the past two decades, there has been a discernible shift in the professional workforce. Increasingly, individuals have chosen to leave traditional corporate environments in favor of smaller ventures, entrepreneurial efforts, and purpose-driven careers. This migration has been fueled by a desire for greater autonomy, meaningful impact, and freedom from the rigidity of hierarchical organizational structures. As the world continues to undergo sweeping changes—economic, technological, and social—professionals are finding themselves at a crossroads. The COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this reckoning, forcing people across industries to reevaluate their relationship with work, identity, and independence. The professional exodus from corporate life is not a recent phenomenon, but it has intensified in recent years. Many highly skilled workers have become disenchanted with the often impersonal, bureaucratic nature of large institutions. For them, entrepreneurship and freelance work offer not only flexibility but a deeper connection to their values and aspirations. As Peter Drucker once noted, “People in any organization are always attached to the obsolete” (Drucker, 1999). Drucker was warning leaders of the dangers of complacency, yet his observation applies equally to workers who find themselves trapped in stale roles. The increasing appeal of non-traditional career paths stems from the recognition that fulfillment often comes from impact and ownership—not just a paycheck or job title. The rise of the gig economy and remote work culture further legitimized this shift. Platforms like Upwork and Substack enabled professionals to monetize their expertise without needing corporate infrastructure. Indeed, even before the pandemic, scholars observed a growing "entrepreneurial revolution" in the workforce, driven by digital tools that made self-employment more accessible than ever before (Kuratko et al., 2015). For professionals seeking meaning and control, starting their own ventures or joining mission-driven startups has been an increasingly viable—and attractive—alternative. Then came COVID-19, a global shock that radically disrupted labor markets and workplace norms. Millions were sent home from their offices overnight. What was initially a crisis turned into a catalyst for reevaluation. Working from home blurred the lines between professional and personal life, giving people more agency over their schedules and environments. Freed from long commutes and office politics, many professionals found a renewed sense of balance, albeit under challenging global conditions. However, the post-pandemic “return to normal” did not unfold as many employers had expected. Calls to return to the office were met with resistance, skepticism, and in some cases, outright refusal. Workers had experienced an alternative mode of professional life—one where they could maintain productivity while also caring for families, managing personal responsibilities, and safeguarding their mental health. This prompted many to ask, “What is the value of my independence?” and “Is it worth it, professionally and personally, to return to a traditional office setting?” These questions are not merely emotional—they are deeply strategic. As professionals assess the opportunity costs of returning to office-based roles, they are evaluating more than logistics. They are reconsidering their identities, long-term goals, and the environments in which they thrive. The desire for autonomy is no longer a fringe sentiment; it is becoming mainstream. Research has found that flexibility in where and when people work is now one of the top three factors employees consider when evaluating job opportunities. In essence, the pandemic has recalibrated professional expectations. But this inflection point is compounded by another seismic force: the rapid advancement of technology, particularly automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). Organizations are investing heavily in these tools, not only to increase efficiency but to future-proof their operations in the face of economic uncertainty and global competition. According to Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014), we have entered a "Second Machine Age" in which intelligent systems will increasingly complement or even replace human labor in areas once thought to be uniquely human—such as decision-making, language processing, and customer service. The implications for professional workers are profound. Some roles will be augmented by AI, while others may become obsolete. New positions will emerge that require a different blend of technical acumen and human-centric skills such as creativity, empathy, and systems thinking. Professionals will need to engage in continuous learning and adaptation—a concept Drucker repeatedly emphasized. In his view, “the most important contribution management needs to make in the 21st century is...to increase the productivity of knowledge work and knowledge workers” (Drucker, 1999). If organizations are to remain competitive and workers are to remain relevant, both must embrace lifelong learning and agility. However, the technological evolution also raises existential questions: If machines can do our jobs better, faster, and cheaper, what role is left for the human professional? This challenge is not just about economics or efficiency—it is about identity. For many, work is deeply intertwined with self-worth and social contribution. As technology disrupts established career paths, professionals are grappling with how to redefine themselves in a world where expertise alone may no longer guarantee stability or status. This is where the human elements of autonomy, purpose, and adaptability come to the forefront. Drucker argued that in times of great change, continuity must be preserved—not by clinging to the past, but by reaffirming values and mission. “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence—it is to act with yesterday’s logic” (Drucker, 1980). For professionals today, yesterday’s logic might mean chasing promotions, adhering to outdated career ladders, or subordinating personal needs to corporate loyalty. But these paradigms are eroding, and a new model is emerging—one that emphasizes contribution over conformity. Balancing continuity and change is especially difficult now, as traditional structures crumble and new models have yet to fully coalesce. Work-life balance, once a fringe discussion, is now central to workforce planning and professional decision-making. Yet as personal agency expands, so too does the burden of choice. The options are plentiful—remote roles, fractional work, entrepreneurship, consulting—but each path requires trade-offs in terms of income security, community, and long-term stability. Management scholars like Mintzberg (2009) have long argued that human development—not just economic output—should be the goal of management. In this light, the current workforce shift is not just a labor trend, but a broader cultural movement. Professionals are asking, “How can I live a good life?” not simply, “How can I make a living?” And companies, if they wish to retain top talent, must begin to answer that question too. Moreover, as technology and autonomy redefine the contours of work, leadership itself must evolve. Traditional command-and-control models are ill-suited for managing decentralized, empowered teams. Leaders must instead become facilitators of meaning, culture, and collaboration. As Goleman (2000) demonstrated, emotional intelligence—self-awareness, empathy, and social skill—is now as important as technical ability in driving team performance and retention. The shift toward purpose-driven work, coupled with the rise of distributed teams, demands a new kind of leadership—one that is human-centered and responsive. We are witnessing a great professional recalibration—a deep and ongoing reexamination of what work means, how it is structured, and what it should achieve. The convergence of post-pandemic recovery, technological disruption, and rising demand for autonomy has created both anxiety and opportunity. Professionals are no longer passively accepting predefined roles; they are actively shaping their careers to align with their values, lifestyles, and aspirations. As Drucker predicted, the most successful organizations—and individuals—will be those who embrace both change and continuity, leveraging technology while preserving the human essence of work. The road ahead is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the age of the autonomous professional is here, and it is reshaping the world of work as we know it. References Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Harper Business. Drucker, P. F. (1980). Managing in Turbulent Times. Harper & Row. Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90. Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Schindehutte, M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of entrepreneurship through framework approaches. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 1–13. Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part II

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • June 21, 2025
In Part I of this series, I gave a brief overview of Alexis de Tocqueville’s background and project of evaluating American Democracy in the early 19 th century. In this new installment, I’d like to share de Tocqueville’s observations about the nature of equality in America and how what he saw might help us understand some of the challenges democracies face today. When de Tocqueville visited America in 1830-1831, the young nation was in the process of redefining equality both in social and political terms. As I noted earlier, the election of Andrew Jackson as president coincided with the expansion of suffrage to not just propertied white males, but to virtually all free white men. This was because as time passed from the founding of the nation in 1789, large property holdings were broken up and passed onto heirs (something de Tocqueville himself noted). In the younger frontier states, and even in the original colonies, governance required broader participation of the electorate. When the founders crafted the United States’ Constitution, they did not envision a democracy that involved a citizenry of the majority (and certainly not women or people of color). While de Tocqueville has much to say about the political conditions in America, it is his commentary on the social ramifications of this changing nature of equality that is most fascinating (and, perhaps, particularly instructive for us today). As wealth was distributed from the few to the many, the concept of a wealthy propertied class began to fade away. This development was exacerbated by the growth in early industry in the East (notably textile manufacturing) which fueled a rising middle class in the cities. As de Tocqueville notes, the early landed gentry families had all but disappeared as their children became doctors, merchants, and lawyers, “commingled with the general mass.” As a result, he comments, Americans embraced a “middling standard” with respect to education and social station. We continue to see echoes of this as most Americans today would claim to be “middle class” even though it is statistically impossible for everyone to be in the “middle.” Throughout his Democracy in America, de Tocqueville argues that the democratic obsession with equality has dramatic social and cultural consequences. What de Tocqueville refers to as “equality of condition” is not actual equality, but the belief in its primacy as an organizing principle for society. The concept of a meritocracy, where one rises or falls by one’s own efforts rather than by virtue of birth status or family heritage, was increasingly part of American culture by the 1830s; the concept of the “self-made man” was enshrined in popular culture from Benjamin Franklin’s work through the Horatio Alger stories of the 19 th century. De Tocqueville observed that this insistence on self-making, on individual achievement, rips at the social fabric of relationships and interconnectedness. Individualism leads a person to “sever himself from the mass of his fellows” and leave “society at large to itself” (98). As one can no longer distinguish oneself in society by position or family status, one must now achieve individual success or power in order to ‘be someone’. This is a byproduct of equality of condition, because as de Tocqueville argues, no person really wants to be the same as everyone else. Deep down, no one truly desires absolute equality on a social level. The question is: how does someone achieve, in Drucker’s terms, status and function if the old order of aristocracy and class structure is swept away? That was one of the primary questions that De Tocqueville pondered as he studied the emerging American Democracy of the early 1800s. One of the manifestations of the desire for status and function in a society obsessed with equality of conditions is an increasing focus on material success. De Tocqueville was fascinated by the “restlessness” with which Americans lived in such prosperity. This is one of my favorite passages from Democracy in America: In the United States a man builds a house in which to spend his old age, and he sells it before the roof is on; he plants a garden and lets it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he brings a field into tillage and leaves other men to gather the crops; he embraces a profession and gives it up; he settles in a place, which he soon afterwards leaves to carry his changeable longings elsewhere. If his private affairs leave him any leisure, he instantly plunges into the vortex of politics; and if at the end of a year of unremitting labor he finds he has a few days’ vacation, his eager curiosity whirls him over the vast extent of the United States, and he will travel fifteen hundred miles in a few days to shake off his happiness. Death at length overtakes him, but it is before he is weary of his bootless chase of that complete felicity which forever escapes him. De Tocqueville describes what we have, in various periods of time, called “keeping up with the Joneses” or “keeping pace” – the desire to match or supersede others’ social status and lifestyles. When the old systems of class stratification disappear, economic success often becomes a marker of achievement in democratic societies. This leads to not just consumerism, but also the “disquietude” that De Tocqueville noticed. Nothing is ever good enough, because one is always measuring oneself against the prosperity of neighbors, co-workers, and associates. Time is short, and “anxiety, fear, and regret” occupy the mind as we worry about what we are missing out on and what we haven’t achieved. As we think about current modern democratic societies, we can see how this obsession with equality of condition and its associated pressures on the need for status and function have only become more exaggerated. De Tocqueville’s work paved the way for Drucker’s argument against an “Economic Man”: a promise of equality based on either a capitalist or socialist system. Socioeconomic equality is not only impossible; it runs against human nature. Furthermore, Drucker’s theory of a knowledge society, a society based on education and knowledge as capital, makes this even more complicated. The more educated people not only make more money, but they also wield more influence politically and socially. Drucker saw this as early as the 1950s, but it is more obvious today. Now, democratic societies face the perception of an elite ruling class in government, academia, business, and other institutions. The “us” vs. “them” mentality pits this elite class against “the middle” – the average person who feels neglected and missing out, “weary of his bootless chase.” Because we have embraced equality as a passion, democracies are perceived as failures in their ability to uphold the promise of economic and social equality for all. The result is a global rise in populism, a rage against the elite establishment, and a desire to tear down institutions. We have seen this play out in political developments in Poland, Italy, Germany, and the United States. What is the solution to this predicament? Should we not pursue equality? Drucker made the case that free societies needed to provide avenues for status and function for all of its members, which meant that economic success and educational achievement could not be the only avenues for being part of society. If a portion of society sees itself as outcasts, as unable to ‘be someone’ or contribute meaningfully, they will perceive that democratic institutions have failed them. The only way for democratic societies to function is to uphold some faith in equality of condition for all. Once the belief in fundamental principles is lost, there is little glue to hold societies together. The key is how we define “equality”; as Drucker and de Tocqueville showed us, promises of economic equality are destined for failure. But democratic societies can afford all of its members human dignity and a sense of purpose. In the next installment, I’ll provide some of de Tocqueville’s suggestions for strengthening democratic institutions. Sources Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.
Show More