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

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.

El Emprendedor, El Emprendimiento, y La Innovación

By Byron Ramirez Ph.D. • June 11, 2025
Cada mañana, Isabel abría su pequeño taller antes del amanecer, aunque nadie aseguraba que llegaría un cliente. No heredó fortuna, solo poseía una idea: reinventar la forma de vestir a su comunidad. Mientras otros dormían, ella soñaba despierta, hilando futuro entre telas. Así comenzó su historia como emprendedora. El emprendedor está motivado por la posibilidad de que sus productos y servicios puedan agregar valor a la sociedad. Pero también está consciente de que, para operar de manera sostenible, necesita generar ganancias. Los emprendedores tienden a reevaluar constantemente sus productos o servicios, mientras examinan el mercado en el que compiten y la forma en que producen y distribuyen sus ofertas. Ellos entienden que, para sobrevivir la intensa rivalidad y competencia que enfrentan, deben encontrar formas de innovar continuamente. La necesidad de competir de manera efectiva conduce a que los emprendedores apuesten por la innovación, ya que esta también facilita la creación de valor. Este es el proceso denominado "destrucción creativa". Joseph Schumpeter acuñó este término para describir el proceso de cambio desordenado, donde las ideas, productos, empresas e industrias enteras son desplazadas por nuevas innovaciones. Schumpeter sostuvo que la principal contribución de los emprendedores a la sociedad es abogar por el cambio y la disrupción, y al hacerlo, ayudan a avanzar a la sociedad. Schumpeter estableció conceptualmente al "emprendedor como innovador", siendo el emprendedor una figura clave en el impulso del desarrollo económico. Schumpeter argumentó que la innovación es un factor crítico del cambio económico. Indicó que el cambio económico gira en torno a la innovación, las actividades emprendedoras y el poder del mercado. Schumpeter afirmó que el poder del mercado originado en la innovación podría proporcionar mejores resultados que la competencia de precios y la ‘mano invisible’. Además, sugirió que la innovación a menudo crea monopolios temporales, permitiendo ganancias anómalas que pronto serían disputadas por imitadores y rivales. Explicó que estos monopolios temporales eran necesarios para proporcionar el incentivo requerido para que otras empresas desarrollaran nuevos productos y procesos. Por consiguiente, el emprendedor introduce cosas nuevas, procesos y perspicacia empresarial con el propósito de transformar innovaciones en bienes económicos. Y el emprendedor está dispuesto a asumir el riesgo asociado con introducir el cambio. Las actividades innovadoras de los emprendedores alimentan un proceso de ‘destrucción creativa’ al causar disturbios constantes en un sistema económico en equilibrio, creando así oportunidades para generar ingresos y beneficios. Por lo tanto, el emprendimiento interrumpe el flujo estacionario del sistema económico y de esta manera inicia y sostiene el proceso de desarrollo económico. Al ajustarse a un nuevo equilibrio, se generan otras innovaciones y más emprendedores entran al sistema económico, introduciendo nuevos productos y servicios, fomentando así el progreso. De manera similar, las empresas emprendedoras participan en la destrucción creativa y así logran captar una parte del mercado al reemplazar empresas que han fracasado en producir productos y servicios valiosos. El proceso de destrucción creativa incentiva a las empresas a desarrollar nuevos productos, servicios y procesos; de lo contrario, no sobrevivirán a largo plazo. El emprendimiento abarca la entrada al mercado de nuevas empresas, pero también respalda el desarrollo de actividades innovadoras en empresas existentes que les permiten crear valor continuo. En este sentido, la innovación puede caracterizarse como el desarrollo de un nuevo producto, servicio o proceso a medida que la empresa emprende nuevas combinaciones de los factores de producción. La innovación es un proceso complejo y dinámico que requiere compromiso, recursos e inversión. Muchas veces, las empresas modifican su modelo de negocio existente, reorganizando la forma en que desarrollan un producto o la manera en que entregan nuevas funcionalidades o servicios a sus clientes. Las modificaciones a un proceso organizacional existente, a un modelo de negocio existente, o incluso a un método de prestación de servicios, son todos ejemplos de cómo se aprovecha la innovación para buscar una mayor efectividad. La innovación puede caracterizarse como el desarrollo de un nuevo proceso o producto (o servicio) que satisface nuevos requerimientos y/o necesidades del mercado existentes. Drucker nos dice: “La innovación debe centrarse en una necesidad específica que satisface, en un resultado final específico que produce.” (Drucker, 1985). La innovación permite que productos, procesos, servicios, tecnologías e ideas más eficaces estén disponibles para los mercados y la sociedad. Como resultado, la innovación es utilizada por la empresa como un medio para satisfacer las necesidades de los consumidores; como una herramienta para competir con otras empresas en un mercado existente; y como un instrumento para ingresar a un nuevo mercado. Por lo tanto, la innovación incrementa conceptualmente la probabilidad de que la empresa logre eficiencia económica a corto plazo, y puede permitirle establecer una posición más competitiva a largo plazo. No obstante, la empresa se enfrenta a limitaciones internas (por ejemplo, el costo de insumos) y limitaciones externas (por ejemplo, la competencia en el mercado) que hacen que sea difícil subsistir. Además, los rendimientos marginales decrecientes influyen en la capacidad de producción de la empresa. La innovación puede considerarse esencial para el éxito de las empresas y para la supervivencia económica a largo plazo. Según algunos académicos, la innovación puede ayudar a mejorar la supervivencia a largo plazo de una empresa, ya que puede mejorar su oferta de línea de productos/servicios al tiempo que le permite establecer una ventaja competitiva sobre otras empresas (Antonelli, 2003; Lundvall, 2007; Porter, 1990; Schumpeter, 1936; Teece y Pisano, 1994). Vale la pena señalar que la empresa que elige innovar lo hace basándose principalmente en la información que tiene sobre las preferencias, deseos y necesidades de los consumidores en su mercado. En otras palabras, la empresa innova porque reconoce la oportunidad y el valor de satisfacer las necesidades y deseos de los consumidores a corto plazo y ve la inversión en innovación como un medio para también posicionarse eficazmente a largo plazo. Drucker nos recuerda: “La innovación sistemática y con propósito comienza con el análisis de las oportunidades” (Drucker, 1985). Y dado que la empresa enfrenta competencia, la innovación se convierte en una vía a través de la cual la empresa puede diferenciar sus productos o servicios. La innovación es la materialización exitosa de una idea útil, donde la idea es comercializada. La innovación también permite a la empresa reconfigurar sus recursos de manera más eficiente, y por lo tanto le permite aumentar su productividad, con la implicación de que esto puede ayudar a aumentar sus ganancias. La innovación ha ayudado a construir empresas y a hacer crecer y desarrollar industrias. Por ejemplo, hace apenas dos décadas, las empresas tenían dificultades para gestionar la gran cantidad de información y datos relacionados con sus interacciones continuas con los clientes. Desde 1999, Salesforce ha revolucionado la forma en que las organizaciones hacen seguimiento de las interacciones con los clientes y gestionan sus datos de ventas. Desde su fundación, Salesforce ha desarrollado múltiples versiones de sus productos, dando lugar a un sofisticado software empresarial basado en la nube que respalda la gestión de relaciones con los clientes (CRM). Las soluciones innovadoras de Salesforce incluyen la automatización de fuerza de ventas, servicio y soporte al cliente, automatización de marketing y comercio digital. Salesforce ha permitido a grandes organizaciones automatizar sus procesos de ventas y marketing y volverse cada vez más eficientes, al tiempo que se convierten en gestores eficaces de los datos e información de los clientes. La innovación no es un proceso lineal. Por el contrario, es un proceso altamente iterativo de reconsiderar muchos factores internos técnicos y operativos, y factores externos, con una interpretación en constante flujo de cómo la empresa podría continuar desarrollando y ofreciendo productos y servicios. La empresa en la que se fomenta la innovación debe apoyar las diversas iteraciones, interacciones y transacciones necesarias para respaldar los esfuerzos de innovación. El emprendedor, que no le teme a la incertidumbre ni al riesgo, es capaz de gestionar este proceso dinámico.  La innovación que aborda una necesidad o deseo del mercado aporta valor a la sociedad. Sin embargo, la innovación requiere que las empresas analicen sistemáticamente las oportunidades que se presentan. Por lo tanto, el emprendedor y la empresa emprendedora deben desarrollar la capacidad de observar y percibir las necesidades cambiantes de las personas. El emprendedor debe entonces centrarse en ofrecer una solución que satisfaga un conjunto específico de necesidades o deseos. Esto implica que la innovación debe ser manejada con propósito. Y también requiere que el emprendedor no solo sea disciplinado, sino que esté dispuesto a invertir en la adquisición de conocimiento que pueda aplicarse productivamente. Tanto el emprendedor como la empresa emprendedora deben reevaluar continuamente sus productos y servicios, analizar el mercado en el que compiten y reconsiderar la forma en que producen y distribuyen sus productos y servicios. Al adoptar la innovación, abogarán por el cambio y la disrupción, y ayudarán a avanzar a la sociedad. Referencias Antonelli, C. (2003). The economics of innovation, new technologies and structural change: studies in global competition series. New York, NY: Routledge. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper Business. Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc. Schumpeter, J.A. (1936). The Theory of Economic Development, Second Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University press. Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and corporate change, 3(3), 537-556.
Show More