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.

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.

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.

In today’s political environment, particularly in the United States, there is much discussion about the future of democracy. Globally, traditional democratic forms of government are being called into question. Is democracy no longer effective in its ability to represent “the people”? Have democratic governments been hijacked by elite, moneyed interests? Are our institutions no longer effective and in need of some kind of reset or reinvention? The increasing appeal of authoritarian regimes, driven by populist anger, has been the subject of the work of many political scientists and observers (Silver and Fetterolf, 2024, Praet, 2024, Rhodes, 2022). Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) sought to understand the essence of democracy. His motivations and observations can perhaps be instructive to us today as we wrestle with the nature of democracy in the modern era. Alexis de Tocqueville was a member of the French aristocracy in the era immediately following the French Revolution. The revolution, which began in 1789, featured the rejection of the monarchy through violent spectacle, including public beheadings via the newly developed guillotine. Alexis’s father was part of the French government and was briefly imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. Nevertheless, he was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause. In fact, many members of the aristocracy in de Tocqueville’s France understood the motivations behind the revolution and sought to ensure that subsequent governments addressed the extreme economic disparities that were exposed by the violent events of the Reign of Terror. Alexis was educated in the aristocratic tradition, studying political philosophy and theory, history, and law. He was well-versed in the Enlightenment philosophy that influenced the framers of the American Constitution, particularly Montesquieu. Montesquieu argued for separation of powers in governance, which derived from his belief in the human capacity not only for greatness, but also for corruption. This tension between virtue and vice, which Montesquieu saw as a universal condition of humankind throughout time, required guardrails to slow down or inhibit abuse of power. Following the establishment of the French Consulate in 1799, Napoleon rose to lead the French Empire in 1804. After his defeat in the Battle of Waterloo, France restored the monarchy to Charles X. However, this was a constitutional monarchy rather than one based on the rights of heredity. In 1830, France overthrew King Charles X of the House of Bourbon, growing critical of his broken promises for economic relief from taxation to pay off the debt of the Napoleonic Wars. Charles was replaced by his cousin, Louis Philippe, of the House of Orleans. Louis Philippe sought to reform the monarchy, recognizing freedoms such as voting rights. Referred to as the “Citizen King”, he would be one of the last kings to represent France. In essence, France was beginning to understand the inevitable: the past world of a hereditary monarch claiming absolute authority was over, and the constitutional monarchy seemingly could not deliver on the promises of egalitarianism made in 1789. But what would the new form of governance look like? This was not clear. Even though the country had a reformist government, constitutional monarchy still retained elite status/class distinctions to maintain social order.  Alexis de Tocqueville was 25 when Louis Philippe was installed as the Citizen King in the July Revolution of 1830. Believing that democracy would inevitably come to France, de Tocqueville wanted to study that form of government. What did it look like? How could it be a stable form of government? Because the United States of America was the earliest experiment in democracy, de Tocqueville petitioned the king to travel to America to study that country. In particular, de Tocqueville convinced the king to let him study the American penitentiary movement. One of the areas of reform pursued in France was prison reform (prisons in France were notoriously horrible). At the time, America was in the middle of its own reform movement, including the penitentiary system of prison reform. The concept of a penitentiary was brand new. The idea behind it was that, instead of rotting in prison forever, you would be reformed and released back into society if you were truly sorry, or penitent for, your crimes. De Tocqueville visited America in 1831-1832. In addition to prison reform, he witnessed many remarkable developments in American democracy. It was President Andrew Jackson’s first term, which involved substantial political upheaval in America. Jackson was the first President elected “of the people.” He was not a Virginian or New England “blue blood,” like all the presidents before him had been. Jackson was from the frontier, and had built his name on a military career, most notably in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson’s election coincided with the expansion of suffrage to most white males regardless of their property ownership. Jackson was understandably a controversial President; his election gave birth to the Whig party as a political alternative. His fight against the Bank of the U.S. placed him at odds with a rapidly developing commercial middle class. During de Tocqueville’s visit, Americans were participating in a growing reform culture. Abolition, or anti-slavery, was building steam in the nation. William Lloyd Garrison published his first issue of The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper that de Tocqueville read. There were religious revivals, known as the Second Great Awakening, and urban reform movements targeting prostitution, temperance, and of course, prison reform, the purported reason for de Tocqueville’s visit. The discovery of gold on Cherokee land in Georgia in 1828 snowballed into the event eventually known as the Trail of Tears, the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands. Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act made such events legal, and de Tocqueville personally witnessed the removal of the Chocktaw tribe. On a lighter note, this was also a time of incredible technological development. Railroad development and land speculation was beginning, McCormick had just patented his reaper, and de Tocqueville saw the newly opened Erie Canal. While de Tocqueville studied the nature of America’s young democracy nearly 200 years ago, we can leverage his observations with our own experience of facing a changing world where the nature of democracy is being questioned globally. The move towards increasing authoritarianism and populist movements calls into question whether democracy is government by the people or by the elite. Can de Tocqueville’s observations help us assess how we might keep democracies intact or make them more effective? In our next installment, I’ll look at de Tocqueville’s specific observations regarding democracy – particularly those related to the nature of equality. Sources Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (1949). The spirit of the laws. New York: Hafner Pub. Co. Praet, J. (2024). Bringing authoritarianism into the limelight: the implications for populist radical right ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 1-23. Rhodes, B. (2022). After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We’ve Made. Random House. Silver, L. and Fetterolf, J. (2024). Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government? Pew Research Center, February 28. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/ Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.

When we describe leaders, we often cite the importance of their ability to influence others. For decades scholars have focused their work on studying and describing how this capacity to influence works and why it tends to elicit a positive response from people, who are inspired to follow the leader’s vision. We have read about that mystifying ability to persuade others and guide them towards a common purpose. However, when analyzing the leader there is another aspect we ought to also consider - where does their power originate from, and is this power considered legitimate? What these questions intend to imply is that when we analyze the interactions of leaders and their followers, we should contemplate how their relationship is built, and moreover, how the power of the leader is used to shape those relationships. Let us first discuss what power is and why it is important. Power in its general sense is the capacity to influence, lead, dominate, or impact the actions of others. The German sociologist, Max Weber referred to power as the capacity to create a desired outcome within a social relationship. As such, power enables the leader to influence and lead the actions of people. Legitimate power is often referred to as power that the person derives from formal position or office held in the organization's hierarchy of authority. And it is this notion of authority that helps legitimatize power in the eyes of the follower. For instance, a manager has legitimate power over their subordinates, allowing them to assign tasks. Teachers possess legitimate power in the classroom, enabling them to assign grades and set learning objectives. We can then surmise that legitimate power is based on the authority granted by a position or title. And individuals will comply with requests or decisions made by the person with authority because they recognize the authority of the person holding the position. However, unlike authority, which implies legitimacy, power can be exercised illegitimately. As history shows us, there are plenty of examples where power did not originate simply from a place of authority and legitimacy, and instead flowed from coercion. Joseph Stalin and his Great Terror campaign certainly comes to mind. And although Stalin did have a position of “authority”, much of his power and influence were coercive and deceptive in nature. In fact, Stalin had used his political positions throughout his life to “remove” opponents while bolstering his image in the pursuit of greater personal power. According to biographer Robert Service (2005), Stalin took pleasure in degrading and humiliating people and kept even close associates in a state of "unrelieved fear”. Of course, there are other instances in which coercive power is used to elicit compliance. A more common example of coercive power is a manager who uses threats of demotion or termination to get employees to comply. And so, when we consider the influence a leader (manager) has, we ought to consider the very nature and source of their power. Do people follow the leader because they are truly inspired by the leader’s vision? Or do they follow because they have no other choice? Managers who threaten the job security of others to ensure compliance, leaders who exploit their positions for personal gain, or individuals who rise through favoritism rather than merit – are manifestations of illegitimate power. Regardless of context, illegitimate power tends to erode morale, limit creativity, and foster toxic environments where people operate out of fear rather than purpose. Illegitimate power wields influence without moral justification, ethical values, or the consent of those affected. And because this form of power often derives from manipulation, coercion, intimidation, or exploitation rather than genuine respect for people, it undermines trust, breeds fear, and corrodes the ethical foundations of organizations and communities. Coercive leaders who use threats, punishment, or psychological pressure to force compliance, may certainly achieve short-term results, but at a significant long-term cost. Coercion strips individuals of their autonomy and creates environments of resentment and disengagement. People may comply outwardly, but internally they may withdraw, resist, or leave. Furthermore, coercive leadership discourages open dialogue and constructive feedback, which are essential for innovation, growth, and continuous improvement. When fear becomes the primary motivator, organizations and societies become stagnant, rigid, and vulnerable to collapse. And this brings us to an important question – what does legitimate power look like? On this issue, Peter Drucker offers unique insights. In his first book, The End of Economic Man (1939), Drucker discussed the issue of legitimate power (although he did not use the term legitimate power, but rather the justification of authority). Drucker believed that the power of rulers must possess legitimacy, a tradition that has continued in Western civilization since Plato and Aristotle. In Drucker’s view, legitimate power involves a functional relationship between power, social beliefs, and social realities: does power commit to social beliefs? At the same time, can it effectively organize social reality based on that commitment to create order? In his books, Concept of the Corporation (1946) and The New Society (1950), Drucker began to use both terms legitimate power and leadership simultaneously. Drucker would go on to argue that a government that commits to the well-being of its people can be said to have legitimate power. Over time, Drucker shifted his analysis of legitimate power from the political realm to social organizations. According to Drucker, if the management of a social organization (such as a company) claims that its principal purpose is to benefit employees, this particular focus would constitute an abuse of power. Instead, Drucker argued that the primary mission of an economic organization is to always achieve economic performance, thereby contributing to society – and this is in fact, the source of the legitimacy of corporate management's power. Of course, a company is also a community. For employees, management undoubtedly holds power and must exercise it. However, the legitimacy of management’s power does not come from the commitment to benefit employees, but rather from two functions: 1. Through institutional design and innovation, shaping effective community communication, thereby enabling middle-level and lower-level employees to gain an overall vision of the organization. This allows employees to have a managerial attitude. 2. By setting clear and reasonable performance standards, prompting employees to take responsibility and achieve success through effective work. If management can perform these functions within the organization, then it is considered to exercise legitimate power. In Drucker's early works, exercising legitimate power was almost synonymous with leadership. Drucker was not enthusiastic about discussing the personal style or charm of leaders, and he was even less inclined to associate leadership with a mystifying ability to persuade others, especially if such persuasion appealed to propaganda, indoctrination, or mental manipulation. For Drucker, discussing leadership primarily meant enabling power to function effectively. Therefore, leadership is not a matter of individual leaders' techniques and styles, but rather a matter of the responsibility and function of power itself. We can surmise from these functions that legitimate power aligns with the goals, beliefs, and aspirations of the people being led. Leaders who wield this kind of power do not need to resort to threats or manipulation. Instead, they inspire, guide, and collaborate. Their authority is accepted because it is seen as fair, earned, and beneficial to the collective. It is vital to foster leaders who operate from legitimate power—power that is granted through trust, expertise, shared values, and recognized authority. Legitimate power is grounded in the formal authority granted to a manager through their role within an organization, but its true strength comes from how that authority is exercised. Unlike coercive power, legitimate power is perceived as rightful and appropriate because it is based on clear expectations, mutual respect, and established structures. When managers consistently act with fairness, integrity, and transparency, their authority is more likely to be accepted and trusted by their teams. This creates a healthy power dynamic where employees feel secure in leadership decisions, understand their roles, and are motivated to contribute toward shared goals. Managers can build legitimate power by aligning their actions with the organization's values and demonstrating competence, consistency, and accountability. For instance, making decisions that reflect the organization’s mission and treating all team members equitably strengthens a manager’s credibility. Communication is also key—leaders who listen actively, provide clear direction, and explain the rationale behind their decisions foster trust and buy-in. Investing in personal growth, staying informed, and modeling a strong work ethic all reinforce the perception that a manager has earned their position and is acting in the best interest of the team and the organization. When managers lead through legitimate power, the benefits to the organization are substantial. Teams are more engaged, morale improves, and collaboration increases because people trust the leadership and feel aligned with the organization’s purpose. This creates a positive feedback loop where employees are more likely to take initiative, innovate, and remain committed, reducing turnover and boosting overall performance. In essence, legitimate power forms the foundation of a sustainable leadership culture—one that empowers individuals, strengthens organizational integrity, and drives long-term success. Developing leaders who influence through legitimate power requires a shift in how we define and nurture leadership. It involves prioritizing emotional intelligence, ethical reasoning, transparency, and empathy. Such leaders model integrity and authenticity, aligning their decisions with shared values and long-term visions. They create environments where people feel valued, heard, and empowered. In turn, this fosters loyalty, engagement, and a strong sense of purpose. To build healthier workplaces and more just societies, we must champion leaders who embody legitimate power: those who influence not by fear, but by vision, credibility, and alignment with shared values. This approach not only promotes ethical leadership but also cultivates trust, innovation, and collective well-being. References Drucker, P. F. (1946). Concept of the corporation. New York: John Day Company Drucker, P. F. (1939). The end of economic man: A study of the new totalitarianism. New York: John Day Company Drucker, P. F. (1950). The new society: The anatomy of the industrial order. New York: Harper Service, R. (2005). Stalin: a biography. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Weber, M. (1965). Politics as a vocation. Fortress Press.

In China, you can see countless interviews with successful entrepreneurs on TV, online, or in magazines. The same is true in the U.S.—probably even more so. I imagine this stylish trend must have originated in America. These interviews often show entrepreneurs sincerely talking about childhood dreams and beliefs they’ve held for decades. They’ll share how they stayed committed to those dreams and step by step made them come true. Over the past few years, I’ve had the chance to meet a few Chinese entrepreneurs—some of whom I had previously seen on TV or in magazines. Once we got to know each other better, they started sharing stories that were quite different from their media narratives. They admitted that their childhoods were hardly filled with grand dreams. What truly pushed them into business were hunger, poverty, cunning—or sometimes, just luck. I am not a nihilist, nor am I trying to say that dreams and beliefs are nothing but marketing gimmicks, exposed through off-the-record conversations. What I mean is: this is a realist world. It’s entirely possible for people to achieve business success through the pursuit of profit, intelligence, hard work, and a bit of luck. Many people don’t fully understand how they even became successful—until they already are. Of course, the world isn’t just about realism. Some people, once successful, begin to seek meaning in their lives. They want to keep doing valuable things—not just by luck, but through genuine understanding. At this point, they need to go back and reexamine what business really means. So what does business really mean? If you asked a Chinese scholar from a thousand years ago, he would most likely say that business is linked to something like original sin. Of course, Chinese culture doesn’t contain the Christian idea of original sin, but when talking about commerce or merchants, scholars would often describe businesspeople as inherently tainted by something spiritually corrupt. If you asked a classical economist like Adam Smith, you’d get a much more generous answer. Classical economists openly accept the profit motive as part of human nature, and they’d go further to say that this motive is a major driver of civilization. The accumulation of social wealth, improved quality of life, and progress of civilization all rely on individuals—driven by profit—to create rules, use their talents, and generate value. After classical economics, this line of thinking became the default lens for understanding business and commercial civilization. Even though Marxism and Nazism have violently attacked the profit motive, modern commercial civilization has not only survived—it has thrived. The great achievement of classical economics was to build a causal relationship between the pursuit of profit and the progress of civilization. But the question remains: is that all there is? The entrepreneurs I know, who fought their way through tough business landscapes, would never doubt the role of the profit motive. But some of them also have a vague sense that business isn’t just about making money. After a few successful ventures, some start to long—consciously or unconsciously—for cleaner businesses, meaningful businesses, even beautiful ones. They may not be able to articulate this impulse, so instead, they go on TV or into magazines and talk about childhood dreams and ideals. These aren’t real memories—they’re symbolic stories. What exactly drives commercial civilization? Peter Drucker agreed with the classical economists, but only halfway—because they only got it halfway right. Drucker never denied the profit motive. But he believed that all successful business activity is a discovery and creation of order. And that’s what makes it so important. Not only do entrepreneurs and managers need to rethink the meaning of business, but ordinary citizens in modern society do too. Drucker’s book Managing for Results, published in 1964, is still seen by many as a hands-on business guide—and rightly so. Few of his works are as focused on practical application, packed with diagrams and terminology. But what’s truly interesting about the book is how, while walking readers through practical operations, Drucker is also helping them rethink what business actually is. He starts right where most businesspeople do—with the desire to make money. But he warns: not every boss who makes money actually understands how they made it—or which products brought in the profit. To figure that out, they have to understand their business as a whole. But doing that means stepping out of personal ego and illusions of success. It means knowing which accounting method reveals the truth. It means identifying which products are making money—and then asking why. And the right way to find out why a product makes money isn’t to ask the product manager, engineer, or designer—it’s to understand the customer’s needs. If the boss and the product manager are serious about understanding the customer, they’ll realize the customer isn’t buying a product—they’re buying value, value that meets a particular need. And customer needs change constantly—just like the weather. Even the smartest people can only partly predict these shifts. The wise approach is to treat change as a given and figure out how to deal with it, manage it, and adapt to it. Once they accept this truth, bosses and managers begin to see the market differently. Results are not things created inside a company—they’re things selected by customers in the marketplace. Profit isn’t wealth created by the company and kept by it; it’s a risk buffer that allows the company to stay in the market. Innovation isn’t a CEO suddenly struck by inspiration; it’s people with entrepreneurial spirit using new combinations of resources to meet customer needs and produce performance. A boss who’s serious about business—and honest about reality—can start out wanting to make money and end up with an entirely new perspective, and a deeper understanding of business. At the end of Managing for Results, Drucker wrote something striking. He believed that not only entrepreneurs and managers need to understand business—they have a responsibility to help the public understand it too. They must become educators in civil society. Even today, in modern, industrialized nations with booming economies, many well-educated citizens still don’t understand business. They look down on it. Some even hate it. They don’t lack conscience—if anything, they’re overflowing with it—but they lack imagination and understanding. They don’t see that business is actually a form of rational exchange and creative mutual benefit between people. And because they don’t understand this, they not only despise business—they become impatient with any kind of rational exchange or creative collaboration. Instead, they get used to imposing their moral preferences on others. That kind of moral arrogance keeps producing hatred and division in modern society. Of course, Drucker didn’t believe business could solve all of society’s problems. But he did believe that the motive behind commercial civilization isn’t only about profit. He also believed that civilized business itself is a form of education for modern society. Because civilization—no matter where it appears—always involves understanding, creating, sharing, and exchanging organizational frameworks. As he wrote: “The economic task, if done purposefully, responsibly, with knowledge and forethought, can indeed be exciting and stimulating, as this book has, I hope, conveyed. It offers intellectual challenge, the reward of accomplishment, and the unique enjoyment man derives from bringing order out of chaos.” Drucker often quoted the British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). As far as I know, Whitehead may be the only modern philosopher—besides Drucker—who truly understood the beauty of business. In his 1925 book Science and the Modern World, Whitehead wrote something strikingly similar: “Art is not limited to sunsets. A factory—by virtue of its machines, its community of workers, its service to the general public, its reliance on organizational and design genius, and its potential as a source of wealth for shareholders—is a living organism rich with value.” But Whitehead also said something even more important, in The Adventure of Ideas (1933): “Plato was right: The creation of the world—the world of civilized institutions—is the victory of persuasion over force.” And business civilization—especially the kind that Drucker and Whitehead envisioned, one that creates order and beauty—is perhaps the most brilliant demonstration of how persuasion can triumph over conquest.  As Drucker said, it’s not just businesspeople who need to understand this. Every citizen of the modern world should too. Because even now, the opposite impulse is still alive—the desire to replace persuasion with conquest and turn business into a game of domination.

When Satya Nadella assumed the role of Microsoft’s Chief Executive Officer in February 2014, the company was experiencing the early symptoms of organizational sclerosis. Though still profitable, it had lost ground to more agile competitors in the mobile and cloud sectors. Internally, Microsoft had become fragmented—defined more by turf battles than innovation. The challenges Nadella inherited resembled those Peter Drucker articulated decades earlier in his conceptualization of the Functioning Society of Institutions (Drucker, 1946). Drucker’s view—deeply shaped by the failure of social cohesion in interwar Europe—called for institutions to reorient themselves not just around efficiency, but around meaning, moral purpose, and self-development. Nadella’s Microsoft has arguably become one of the clearest corporate embodiments of Drucker’s philosophy of Management as a Liberal Art (Drucker, 1989). Much of Nadella’s success can be attributed to his emphasis on empathy and cultural reinvention. Prior to his appointment, Microsoft was widely seen as a combative, insular organization (Lohr, 2014). Nadella moved swiftly to change this. In his internal communications and public interviews, he spoke often of empathy—not as a rhetorical flourish, but as a managerial imperative. This commitment mirrored Drucker’s belief that management must engage the whole human being, acknowledging both rational capability and emotional complexity (Drucker, 1989). Drucker emphasized that organizations ought to be places where people grow in both skill and character. Nadella’s redefinition of leadership as empathetic listening and continuous learning operationalized that belief in a modern, corporate context. At the center of Nadella’s early cultural transformation was the introduction of a "growth mindset," a concept he borrowed from psychologist Carol Dweck (Dweck, 2006). Employees were encouraged to ask questions, seek feedback, and approach problems with humility. Drucker had long argued that a functioning institution required the cultivation of self-awareness and wisdom (Drucker, 1993). Nadella, in fostering a company-wide learning orientation, aligned Microsoft's trajectory with the MLA principle that personal development and organizational mission must progress hand-in-hand. The result was an environment that encouraged intellectual humility without sacrificing performance. Equally important in understanding Nadella’s alignment with Drucker’s MLA framework is the redefinition of Microsoft's mission. Under Steve Ballmer, the mission had been tightly product-focused: "a PC on every desk and in every home." Nadella’s version was broader and more aspirational: “to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more” (Microsoft, 2017). Drucker might have called this a shift from a narrow economic mandate to a wider societal purpose. In The Concept of the Corporation, Drucker (1946) warned against corporations existing as islands of profit, detached from community responsibilities. Nadella’s mission reframed Microsoft not just as a tech vendor but as a social actor—a stakeholder in global development. Drucker’s emphasis on function and status within a functioning institution also finds modern expression in Nadella’s restructuring of Microsoft's performance evaluation system. The previous stack-ranking model—which pitted employees against each other—was scrapped (Wingfield, 2013). It had rewarded individual performance over team cohesion, eroding trust and stifling creativity. Nadella implemented a performance system that rewarded collaboration, curiosity, and contributions to others’ success. This pivot acknowledged Drucker’s claim that organizations succeed not when individuals compete within them, but when their actions contribute meaningfully to a shared mission (Drucker, 1989). In accordance with Drucker’s MLA principle that organizations must exist within society—not apart from it—Nadella also led Microsoft into a new era of corporate social responsibility. Under his watch, Microsoft committed to becoming carbon negative by 2030, developed AI tools for accessibility, and began publicly advocating for ethical technology development (Microsoft, 2020). Drucker (1999) asserted that institutions must balance individual rights with societal duties. Nadella’s policies gave concrete expression to this ideal, embedding corporate ethics into strategy, not as appendages but as essential elements of long-term resilience. Crucially, Nadella has approached leadership with the recognition that authority alone does not confer legitimacy. Drucker emphasized the importance of persuasion over coercion, process over fiat (Drucker, 1990). Nadella, rather than enforcing top-down directives, frequently invites employee participation in major shifts. Microsoft’s move into open source software—once unthinkable—was carefully socialized within the organization and presented not as an edict, but as a necessary cultural and business evolution (Miller, 2018). The broader implications of Nadella’s leadership can be understood through Drucker’s transdisciplinary lens. Drucker saw management as a “liberal art” because it required the application of ethics, psychology, history, and even theology in decision-making (Drucker, 1989). Nadella frequently cites literature, philosophy, and biography in his public remarks. His personal reflections often involve moral and philosophical introspection, underscoring Drucker’s belief that leadership is a humanistic endeavor requiring breadth of thought and emotional depth (Nadella, 2017). Despite Microsoft’s technological focus, Nadella’s management philosophy resists technocratic reductionism. His belief that people—not platforms—are the key to innovation affirms Drucker’s warning that effective management is not merely quantitative but judgment-based (Drucker, 1990). Microsoft’s market capitalization under Nadella has more than tripled, underscoring that an ethical, human-centered organization is not incompatible with economic success (Nasdaq, 2024). As Drucker argued in The New Realities, leadership in a knowledge society must move beyond command structures and embrace complexity, diversity, and continual learning (Drucker, 1989). Nadella has not only embraced these values—he has embedded them into Microsoft’s organizational DNA. His leadership demonstrates that Management as a Liberal Art is more than a theoretical framework; it is a viable, proven, and necessary strategy for organizational renewal and social relevance in the 21st century. References · Drucker, P. F. (1946). The concept of the corporation. New York: The John Day Company. · Drucker, P. F. (1989). The new realities: In government and politics, in economics and business, in society and world view. New York: Harper & Row. · Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. New York: HarperBusiness. · Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness. · Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperBusiness. · Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. · Lohr, S. (2014, February 4). Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s new chief, is a company man. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/technology/satya-nadella-named-chief-of-microsoft.html · Microsoft. (2017). Our mission. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/about · Microsoft. (2020). Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/ · Miller, C. C. (2018, October 22). How Satya Nadella remade Microsoft as an open source company. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/technology/microsoft-open-source.html · Nadella, S. (2017). Hit refresh: The quest to rediscover Microsoft’s soul and imagine a better future for everyone. Harper Business. · Nasdaq. (2024). Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) stock performance. Nasdaq.com. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/msft · Wingfield, N. (2013, November 12). Microsoft alters employee review process. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/technology/microsoft-alters-employee-review-process.html

One can use Drucker’s ideas to understand the political and social scene in China today. Let’s start with a story. Fyodor Dostoyevsky published his novel The House of the Dead in 1862. Dostoyevsky actually spent time in a Siberian prison camp, and drew on that experience as he depicted prisoners in the novel. These prisoners were seen as hardened criminals, and go through an incredible transformation at Christmastime. They are permitted to put on a play. Suddenly, these hardened criminals are bursting with creativity. They’re writing, directing, designing costumes, an entire production process involved in creating this theatrical play. A completely different side of them comes out. This story illustrates a point that is at the heart of Drucker’s work. This is the idea that no system, no matter how restrictive or oppressive, can completely destroy our humanity. Even within a place as terrible as a prison, there is still room for agency, for choosing how we respond to our circumstances. Even with limitations, they found a way to express themselves. The prisoners find a way to carve out a space for freedom. It makes one think about those times when we are boxed in by expectations, or stuck in a rut. Maybe there is always a way to break out. This ties in perfectly with what Drucker always talked about in terms of individual responsibility. It’s not about waiting for someone to give you permission, or for the perfect situation to magically appear. It’s about realizing that we always have choices, and those choices make us who we are. So these prisoners are finding freedom in this highly unlikely place! But we can see how this links to Drucker’s thoughts on societal order. Think about it: Are we all prisoners in some way? This is where Drucker’s own experiences in 20 th -century Europe become incredibly relevant to our own lived experience today. He saw the rise of totalitarian regimes firsthand. He likened them to “beehives” and “anthills” where individual freedom was crushed by the weight of the state. Like everyone is marching in line; there is no room for being different. Let us think about this: even in societies that aren’t explicitly totalitarian, we can still build those same kinds of structures: prisons of conformity and control, where everyone is expected to be the same. Drucker saw this as the complete opposite of the chaos of disorder. A healthy society has to find that balance. You need a middle ground of diversity, this multi-layered system where individuals can find meaning without being crushed by a large, powerful authority. Walking a tightrope between too much order and too much chaos. Too much order represents the beehive model. Too much chaos creates the jungle, where it is everyone for himself. Finding the middle ground is a challenge. It’s the balance between individual freedom, and a sense of order. In many ways, Chinese society places value on order and control. But Drucker’s ideas about personal responsibility and gives one a choice to exercise individual freedom even within a system of constraints. How do we find those little spaces for freedom within those constraints? You can’t change the system, but you can make choices that allow you to exercise your own agency, and align your actions with your beliefs. That brings us to one of Drucker’s most mind-blowing ideas: it’s what he called the “mechanistic world view.” He thought that seeing the world as a giant machine with humans as cogs in the system disrupts how we see the concepts of freedom and responsibility. Imagine a factory with an assembly line, where each worker has their one specific job. They do this over and over again, with no room for creativity, no sense of ownership. That’s the essence of the mechanistic world view: we all become robots, following a program. Freedom, in this word view, becomes chasing simple pleasures, like comfort. There is no sense of purpose. One just goes through the motions. The focus is on efficiency and output, not the human factors that go into work. Responsibility is reduced to following orders rather than making thoughtful choices. If the mechanistic world view is the problem, what is the alternative? Drucker gives us an alternative: the teleological world view. This is the view that the universe is not a static machine, but rather a dynamic system where everything is connected from atoms to humans. Everything contributes to create a new order. In this world view, freedom isn’t doing what you feel like, or feels good, but developing your potential as a human being and using that to contribute to something bigger than yourself. Responsibility isn’t about following rules, but understanding the impact your choices have. Thinking back to the prisoner story we began with: their decisions had impacts. They tapped into their potential, and found a shared purpose. This resonates with Eastern Philosophical ideas of individual cultivation and harmony with the cosmos. Drucker’s ideas, while grounded in Western traditions, transcend cultural boundaries. How much of our lives, regardless of culture, are actually run by this mechanistic mindset? In work, school – are we really encouraged to think for ourselves? Or to contribute to some bigger purpose? Even in systems that feel very mechanistic, there will always be ways to find pockets to express freedom – places where we can make a choice and do something meaningful. It may not be easy, but it is always there. It starts with recognizing that we have a choice. We can be cogs in the machine. Or we can choose to be creative agents of change. We are reminded of where we began, with Dostoyevsky, who said “man is created for freedom.” Even when things are difficult, we are hardwired for expressing ourselves and deciding our own path. It’s all about finding those stages within the prison walls. The limitations exist in Chinese society; but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a free existence. Drucker’s ideas, while Western, have resonance in other cultures. Freedom is not just a large, abstract concept. It’s also about the everyday choices we make within our specific cultural contexts. The little ways we express ourselves and choose to build something new instead of accepting the status quo. Making things more beautiful and meaningful, even if it’s just in our own small world. Which brings us back to Drucker’s definition of freedom. For him, freedom involved responsible choice. It is not right as much as responsibility. It is not something given to us. It’s something we must work for and earn. And we choose it every day through our actions.  One final thought: If life is a stage, what role would you play? What kind of performance are you giving to the world? Are you building prisons? Or are you building stages? Are you choosing freedom and responsibility? Or are you just going through the motions? This is not about easy answers. It’s about finding a world where freedom and responsibility can coexist and thrive.