Dignity, Status, and Function: Pay Attention to the New Concerns of Knowledge Workers

Karen Linkletter, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

December 15, 2022

The recently averted railroad worker strike reminded me of an important event in history that most people today are probably unaware of. In 1877, rail workers across the United States went on strike, creating what historians now refer to as the Great Railroad Strike. When historians think an event was significant, causing some kind of cultural, economic, social or other upheaval, they designate it with the term “Great” (the Great Depression, the Great Awakening, the Great Recession).


Peter Drucker looked at events of his time through the lens of a social ecologist: someone looking for meaningful change that has already impacted or would impact society in the long run. This change may be in the form of demographic trends, shifting attitudes, or significant events. In hindsight, we know that the 1877 strike was significant although, at the time, it appeared to be a short-lived, albeit violent, worker uprising.  The Great Railroad Strike showed the changing nature of class identity, and what can happen when people feel a loss of dignity, status and function in society. While certainly not a “great” event, the averted 2022 strike is perhaps another event that points to changing attitudes about work and the continued importance of dignity, status and function. I think it presents us with a moment to consider the nature of work in our post-pandemic environment, particularly as many organizations grapple with challenges related to finding and retaining qualified workers – especially knowledge workers.


Before we get to the details of the 2022 railroad strike that didn’t happen, I’ll give a brief summary of the Great Railroad Strike. Economic conditions in 1877 were grim. The United States suffered an economic “panic” in 1873, when the failure of a major investment firm triggered a loss of confidence in the financial markets. The country plunged into a depression, and firms began cutting jobs and wages, raising unemployment and further dampening the economy. The railroads, which were the primary means of transporting goods across the United States, had been a growth industry until the Panic of 1873, and employed large numbers of workers. In May of 1877, the Pennsylvania Railroad, the nation’s largest railroad, cut wages by ten percent, and then cut them by another ten percent the following month. Other railroad companies did the same thing, and also cut the work week down to a couple of days. In July, the Pennsylvania Railroad doubled the size of its eastbound trains with no increase in staff to manage the additional workload. In that month, workers began to rebel, taking control of train switches and preventing cars from moving. Violent strikes began to erupt in cities across the country; Maryland, West Virginia and Pennsylvania called up their state militias to respond to the violence. In some cities, militia members sympathized with the strikers, and joined in. President Rutherford B. Hayes called in federal troops, and in Pittsburgh, these troops fired into crowds of people, killing more than 20 civilians. By the end of July, the strike had subsided, leaving 100 people dead across the country and over a thousand arrested.

The workers received none of their demands (better pay, restored hours), and labor unrest continued in the industry well through the late 1800s. So why was this such a momentous event?


·     Public support: Mark Twain published The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today in 1873. In this novel, he satirizes the wealth inequality that was a feature of American society in the late nineteenth century. The greed and political corruption of this era is well documented; as working-class Americans became increasingly aware of the growing class divisions in society, they sympathized with the railroad strikers. This public opinion fueled an eventual call for labor reform.

·     Multi-industry support: This was the first general strike in American history, where workers from other industries supported the rail workers. The Great Railroad Strike touched a nerve in the growing working class, who felt devalued, increasingly marginalized, and exploited by a wealthy ruling class.

·     Catalyst for unionization: At the time, there were few organized labor unions; organized labor consisted of local brotherhoods of primarily skilled workers. The Great Railroad Strike galvanized workers to organize into more effective unions, such as the American Federation of Labor, to attempt to ameliorate their work conditions, hours, and wages.

·     Power: The Great Railroad Strike showed the power of human action. Without any organization and structure, rail workers were able to cripple the transportation network of the United States. Meat rotted on railroad cars, mail was not delivered – an entire national system of order was brought to a halt by a relatively small group of people wielding enormous power.

 

There are some parallels between the Great Railroad Strike and the averted 2022 railroad strike, and also some remarkable differences. First, the parallels.


·     Essential workers: People in the 1800s paid a LOT of attention to what happened with railroads, because they understood how goods moved through the country, and they felt the impact. The COVID 19 pandemic highlighted the importance of “essential workers,” including those employed in transportation. As supply chain constraints led to shortages of all kinds of goods, from microchips to toys to food items, most Americans, probably for the first time, were unable to purchase some product for lack of supply. During the pandemic, essential workers in health care and grocery stores were heralded as “heroes.” Workers in rail transport received little attention even though that industry experienced enormous upheaval. However, the threat of a strike in 2022 just before the holidays put the railroad industry in the spotlight, showing how, in spite of their small numbers, these workers could inflict considerable damage and pain to the U.S. economy. President Biden cited the devastating effects of a rail strike, pointing to the possible loss of 765,000 jobs. In 1877, railroad workers shut down the economy of the United States in a time where rail transportation was the primary way to ship material interstate. Rail workers were few, but powerful. Today, rail workers are an even smaller portion of the labor force, but they still wield power as essential workers.

 

·     Industry turmoil: In the late 1800s, the United States was in the throes of an economic decline precipitated by a financial panic. The railroads were the primary source of interstate transportation (and also a new, growth industry, and thus their securities were susceptible to price fluctuations). The railroad industry of the 21st century also faced considerable turmoil, including international pressure. Following a steady decline since the 1940s, employment in the railroad sector remained relatively stable from the 1980s until 2018, when employment numbers began to drop. One reason for this decline in jobs was the decrease in shipments of coal resulting from a shift away from fossil fuels. Another reason was the uncertain trade relationships the United States had with key partners, particularly China. Tariff threats between the two countries involving both agricultural products and manufactured goods caused rail companies to reconsider hiring new employees. Company practices also played a role. In the early 2000s, the railroad companies began to pursue a business model that emphasized boosting profits by reducing labor costs. The implementation of precision scheduled railroading (PSR) allowed railroads to operate more efficiently, but it also eliminated the business’s ability to have staffing cushions or manage unforeseen circumstances, such as weather disruptions. Finally, like all industries, the nationwide shutdowns forced by the COVID-19 virus outbreak caused widespread unemployment in the railroads. When the economy began to recovery from the pandemic in 2020, the industry faced staffing shortages, and made increasing demands on workers’ already stressed schedules. Train operators don’t have regular days off; when they return from a trip, they are rotated to the bottom of the staffing list to give them time off. However, if the staffing list is short, workers have little to no time off, and are discouraged from taking any paid leave. With deteriorating work conditions, attrition increased, exacerbating the railroad companies’ already stretched staffing problems. As was the case in many other sectors, the “Great Resignation” impacted the rail business, as older workers opted to retire, and younger workers prioritized work-life balance over wages.  So, as in the late nineteenth century, the industry looked to labor reductions to cope with changes in externalities.

 

·     Lack of dignity, status, and function: In the 19th century, workers felt devalued for a number of reasons. As America industrialized in the early 1800s, skilled workers saw themselves as partners with management; management and labor both had a seat at the table to negotiate work conditions, output, wages, and goals. In a way, these early years of labor reflected Drucker’s idea of Management by Objectives. Each party saw themselves as having responsibility for the organization’s success. However, as industrialization matured in the late 1800s, coupled with immigration of lower-skilled labor, relations between management and labor soured. Growing class division and economic uncertainty fueled the working class’s sense that they were inferior, unvalued, underpaid, and lacking in status and function. The Great Railroad Strike was but the first of many labor actions that reflected this sense of indignity in a country that preached that hard work would equal success. In 2022, dignity for workers of all kinds means not just money. Railroad workers are highly paid, but cannot take time off for personal needs, such as doctor visits. In the 21st century, dignity involves being treated as a human being, not an economic being. Drucker wrote about this tirelessly. We should not be surprised that workers who cannot have time to have a meaningful life outside of work should be unhappy and unproductive. Railroad workers are not merely labor inputs.

 

Now, the historical divergences.


·     Union power: The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 did not involve union participation because there was no railroad union. Today, there are multiple unions representing the various trades associated with railroad work (37 railroads and 12 unions), including machinists, train operators, electricians, blacksmiths, and transportation communication professionals. The interests of all of these parties are not the same. Negotiating a labor agreement requires balancing the desires of all participants and involves compromise. The 2022 agreement was criticized by many – a sign that it was a compromise that involved parties giving in on positions. In 1877, workers had no bargaining power, and violence became the tool of last resort.


·     Unimportance of wages: The Great Strike of 1877 was primarily about wages (and job retention). The workers of 2022 were paid well; the average pay for a train conductor in 2022 was $53,571, and they certainly did not want more hours! The issue in 2022 was about time. As discussed previously, dignity, status and function – aspects that Drucker emphasized from the beginning of his writing – are key in both of these labor actions. In 1877, wages and more hours were valued. Today, workers value time with their families, time to take care of their personal needs, and having a life outside of work, especially if they are an essential worker, stretched to the limit during the pandemic and the years of recovery after. Money is important to cope with inflation and financial stressors, but this strike shows that highly-paid workers can still feel undervalued.


·     Technology: In 1877, the railroads were still relatively new technology. The financial meltdown in 1872 was a result of speculation in railroad securities. By 2022, rail transportation was a very old industry that has undergone major shifts to stay alive and relevant. The railroad industry, like many others, has seen an increased use of technology and a subsequent shift in job requirements for workers. Rather than rely on human eyes for inspecting tracks and equipment, companies use drones and sensors to collect large amounts of information and rely on data analytics to streamline operations and improve safety and efficiency. Positive Train Control (PTC) uses Artificial Intelligence and algorithms to determine the location, direction, and speed of a train on many routes, notifying the train operator of a problem and, if no action is taken, stopping the train. Those tasked with developing and using these new technologies are a new kind of knowledge worker in the rail industry.

 

 

Takeaways


·     Knowledge workers are essential workers too. The pandemic shed light on existing class divisions (as well as ethnic, racial, and gender divides). People celebrated “essential” workers who were visible, working on the front lines. But many other workers were just as “essential,” managing freight traffic to accommodate the shift towards purchasing consumer items during the lockdowns. When the economy reopened, these same workers were tasked with managing supply chain issues. In the 19th century, railroad workers were, for the most part, skilled labor. They are even more so now. We need to think through who is an “essential” worker and what is “knowledge” work.


·     All workers need balance. Workers in the 1800s needed adequate wages and hours to survive – but not to the point of being worked to death. Once unionization provided some control over wages, workers in the late 1800s and early 1900s were pushing for balance. “Eight hours labor, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest” became the rallying cry for an eight-hour work day. Knowledge workers may scoff at such an idea, but for manual laborers in heavy industry, physical labor takes a toll. Today, it is easy for knowledge workers to toil for 12 plus hours a day. But the pandemic created a shift in attitudes about work/life balance. We all need time to manage personal needs (doctor appointments, child care, etc.). Even if work isn’t physically grueling, it shouldn’t prevent us from being human beings.


·     Wages are important in an inflationary environment, but time is more important. Early labor actions fought for better wages and work conditions. Today, wages are important, and lower-skilled workers are fighting for better pay to keep up with the cost of living. Knowledge workers also need to be paid a reasonable wage or salary, especially given our inflationary environment. However, increasingly, time is more valuable to people than money. At some point, the utility of time outweighs the utility of money. The Great Resignation and the threatened railroad strike show that we are seeing this economic tradeoff become more widespread.


·     All workers need a sense of dignity, status, and function. This sounds great. What does it actually look like? It is complicated. In the 1800s, American society began to sort people into an increasingly divided class system, with industrial workers (no matter how skilled) at the bottom. The managerial and professional class began to rise as the new middle class (replacing teachers, tradesmen, and others of the old pre-industrial era), while the wealthy plantation owners and merchants were joined (in many cases surpassed) by a growing upper class of industrial elite. When the working class of the United States sensed a lack of dignity, status and function, they rebelled – and organized. When the organized railroad workers of 2022 sensed a lack of dignity, status and function as a result of years of overwork, they spoke. It seems to me that if managers can grasp the importance of such key aspects of MLA (dignity, status, function), then we can prevent such actions in the future. And, if we can view things through the lens of a social ecologist, we can see the bigger picture, understanding how history can teach us how not to repeat the errors of the past.

 

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3189

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/business/economy/railroad-workers-strike.html

https://www.aar.org/article/the-future-of-rail/

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/employment-in-rail-transportation-heads-downhill-between-november-2018-and-december-2020.htm

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/28/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-averting-a-rail-shutdown/

https://raillaborfacts.org/bargaining-essentials/the-parties/

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/railroad-conductor-salary-SRCH_KO0,18.htm

https://www.nelp.org/blog/this-week-in-labor-history-remembering-the-adamson-act/


Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part III

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

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

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

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part II

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