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/


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

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

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part II

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

El Emprendedor, El Emprendimiento, y La Innovación

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