Do Words Matter?

Karen Linkletter, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

November 16, 2022

Peter Drucker's distinction between language and communication

Peter Drucker made a clear distinction in his writing between language and communication. For Drucker, language was part of culture. It was “substance…the cement that holds humanity together. It creates community and communion” (Drucker, 1992). Language was not just communication. It was something much more important. In our current time, I don’t think we share this respect for language. With the explosion of social media, it has become too easy to type a few words into a text or a tweet, or even an email, and expect that the reader will understand the essence of that communication.


I’ve been leading a course on Drucker Philosophy and Theory 101 for faculty and administrators at CIAM, as well as participants from MLARI, since the summer. Although we’ve been delving into the intricacies of Drucker’s ideas and how to implement them, our sessions have focused on Drucker’s language; what did Drucker actually SAY about topics such as a functioning society of organizations, or management as a liberal art? What role do words play in how we interpret meaning – in short, how do words function in communication?


Communication can take many forms that are nonverbal: body language, facial expression, tone, etc. These are very important, particularly as we emerge from a remote world where many of us are rusty in using these kinds of communication skills. But the role of verbal communication is crucial to any society, particularly a society of organizations where people need to convey complex ideas and information.


Drucker was well aware of the problem of communicating. In a paper presented in 1969, he stated that “communications has [sic] proven as elusive as the Unicorn” (Drucker, 1993, p. 320). Despite the increased focus on the subject, managers in the mid-twentieth century were woefully poor at this skill. Can we argue that the same is not true for today in any sector (government, for-profit, health care, education) save for some exceptions?


I suppose we need to clarify what “effective communication” looks like. In today’s world, communication can look like a Zoom meeting, a tweet, a social media post, a highly-scripted interview, or an administratively-driven process of internal interactions. Are these effective forms of communication for organizations? They can be, but, if misused or poorly crafted, they can be remarkably ineffective.


In his seminal work, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (1974), Drucker cited four fundamentals of communication:

·     Communication is perception

·     Communication is expectation

·     Communication makes demands

·     Communication and information are different and indeed largely opposite – yet interdependent (Drucker, 1974, p. 391).


Much of this material derives from the 1969 paper presented to the Fellows of the International Academy of Management in Tokyo.


Communication is perception: Drucker has a lot to say about this, but I can summarize: Did he/she/they “get it”? You may be an incredible speaker (or writer), or you may not be. The point is: did your audience get what you were trying to convey? If not, why? Was it the words you used, the delivery, the body language, etc. It’s hard to admit that, even though you are a professional speaker or writer, “it is the recipient who communicates. The so-called communicator, the person who emits the communication, does not communicate. He or she utters. Unless there is someone who hears, there is no communication” (Drucker, 1974, p. 391). That’s a hard pill to swallow if you fancy yourself an eloquent speaker, leader, or teacher. But it really doesn’t matter, does it? What matters is whether or not your “utterance” was understood. And was it understood the way you intended?  You may think you conveyed an idea or thought, but the language you used may have been perceived in a different way due to cultural differences, gender or ethnic conflicts, class inequalities, or other sources of miscommunication (see, for example, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2017.1408943).


Our more recent problems with communication and perception have to do with virtual interactions that accelerated during the pandemic and have remained an integral part of how we talk to each other. Various platforms have attempted to upgrade their interfaces to improve communication, such as features that allow one to avoid seeing themselves (which can be distracting, as some tend to focus on their appearance rather than on the content of the meeting or the reactions of others). How can you assess the perception of your Zoom audience during a presentation? Especially when the cameras are turned off? Many have lost their perception skills because of the reliance on technology rather than face-to-face interactions. What does that emoji mean? How do I interpret the exclamation point in that text? Drucker’s first element of communication – perception – is difficult to assess virtually. Is it any wonder we are so poor at real communication today? (See https://www.harvardbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HBR_How_to_Avoid_Virtual_Miscommunication-1.pdf, and https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/10/07/zoom-gloom-is-real-how-to-improve-communication-and-connection-without-video/?sh=63c86ebd243d)


Communication is expectation: Humans try to make sense out of our worlds and assemble information into some kind of order. We all have a set of expectations based on experience that influence our processing of information. In Drucker’s words, “We see largely what we expect to see, and we hear largely what we expect to hear” (Drucker, 1974, p. 393). The unexpected is either ignored or largely misunderstood. People try to fit information into their existing framework or understanding of how things work.


We have to understand what people expect to see and hear before we can effectively communicate. If information fits within someone’s expectations, it will be perceived. If the message is contrary to the recipient’s expectations, that must be clearly signaled. The worst mistake is to attempt “a gradual change in which the mind is supposedly led by small steps to realize that what is perceived is not what it expects” (Drucker, 1974, p. 393). This only reinforces expectations. Instead, clearly communicate that “This is different!”, creating an awakening that breaks through expectations.


This is easier said than done! Such a signal can create a sense of panic or distress, as it implies the need for a change in approach, strategy, outlook, and/or tactics. In the United States, the poor messaging with respect to public health measures needed to combat the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the dangers of mismanaging human expectation in communications. In the early stages of the pandemic, when data were limited, public communications did not emphasize that this was, in fact, a novel coronavirus, and that the potential threat was unique and serious. As a result, much of the public discounted later attempts to curb mortality rates through lockdowns, distancing, and masking. The COVID-19 pandemic did not fit within anyone’s expectations (save for the handful of experts trained in virology and public health). Yet, other nations, notably Germany, Taiwan, and South Korea took the threat seriously, communicated it effectively, and managed to avoid significant deaths in the early stages of the pandemic. Researchers are evaluating the various responses to the pandemic, and how the public reacted to communications from scientists and government representatives (see, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921004775 and

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09636625221093194

 

Communication makes demands: In his 1969 paper, Drucker used the subtitle “Communication is Involvement” (Drucker, 1993, p. 326). That header actual encapsulates his argument more effectively; he likely modified it to appeal to a management audience in his later work. Drucker says that communication “always demands that that the recipient become somebody, do something, believe something. It always appeals to motivation. If communication fits in with the aspirations, values and purposes of the recipient, it is powerful. If it goes against them, it is likely not to be received at all…By and large, therefore, there is no communication unless the message can key in to the recipient’s own values [emphasis mine],” (Drucker, 1974, p. 395). I think this is possibly the most important message Drucker gives us about communication. Real communication involves some kind of expectation of action. A salesperson asks for the order. A human resources manager requests her team to implement a new policy. A non-profit director asks volunteers to show up for an important event. Drucker remarks that “Communication is always ‘propaganda’” (Drucker, 1974, p. 394), but, frankly, I find his word usage ineffective here. Propaganda is associated with the misuse of language - the attempt to promote a biased perspective or a particular point of view. But the point that communication expects some kind of action - physical, intellectual, or spiritual – is important. Clear communication is not propaganda. It conveys information that is congruent with values that are shared by the individual and the organization (or the communicator). If a leader asks team members to participate in a project, the project needs to make sense in terms of the organization’s values and objectives, as well as the individual participants’ sense of purpose and meaning. This is why it is so critical for organizations to make sure that team members share the same values and goals of the larger institution. If individuals are not aligned with a higher purpose, their efforts are solely their own, with no greater function. Communication that asks them to do something for the “team,” or the “organization,” or “society” will not be received. Conversely, organizations need to make sure that they are communicating in a way that speaks to the motivations of the individual; how will that person grow from this experience? How will they become more effective in their role, or as a leader, or as a person?

 

Communication and information are different and largely opposite – yet interdependent: Information is pure. It is logic, without meaning, impersonal, and free of human intervention. Communication, however, is steeped in human intervention. Communication seeks to make meaning out of information. As Drucker noted in 1974, humans were awash in information, but lacking in ways of making sense out of that information: “…information is, above all, a principle of economy. The fewer data needed, the better the information. And an overload of information leads to information blackout. It does not enrich, but impoverishes” (Drucker, 1974, p. 395-396).


Fast forward to today, and we are in the same situation on steroids. Misinformation abounds on social media platforms, leading to political division and violence. Organizations are overwhelmed by data, struggling to find meaning in the mass of information. Data analytics has exploded as a field of study and application. Fifty years ago, Drucker commented that the information revolution of that age did not really produce information; it merely produced data (Drucker, 1974, p. 398). This is not communication. Communication involves understanding the human component: emotions, values, expectations and perceptions. Thus, communication and information are, as Drucker states, largely opposite, but yet they are interdependent, particularly today. How can we use information constructively in communications? By understanding the human component of communication.


So, do words matter? Do what we say and write make a difference in communication? Absolutely.


If communication is perception, it requires effectively conveying concepts or ideas in a way that another person can actually hear and comprehend. This may require using a variety of words to communicate; not everyone understands a particular term the same way, as words carry associations, cultural references, and other information. In our class, for example, we discussed the fact that Drucker’s use of the terms “conservative” and “liberal” can be very jarring for a modern audience, as those words today are particularly loaded politically. In Drucker’s writing, they are not; Drucker uses those terms in a historical context that is largely unfamiliar to a contemporary audience, particularly an American audience. In academia, the use of jargon is another example of where language can get in the way of perception. The term “rationality” in decision making has specific connotations that may be unclear to someone who comes from a humanities background, where “rationality” may mean something more philosophical. Particularly when we are attempting to discuss complex problems or subjects, our word choice can actually make a complicated subject more confusing.

 

If communication is expectation, we need to understand what our audience expects to hear, read, or see. What is “expected” for this particular person or group of people? Can we use language that fits with their worldview or perspective? Or do we need to signal clearly that something is out of the ordinary? Some individuals are more flexible and open to change; they are resilient in the face of adversity and have coping skills to adapt. Others are less capable in this area; they fear change and prefer routine and the safety of predictability. If you are introducing a new program, method of performance evaluation, or other change, how does your language impact the reception of that action? If someone expects change as the norm, the communication can take one form. If another person expects the absence of change as the status quo, then the communication needs to be modified, using a completely different tone and approach. This is why it is crucial for you to know your team members and assess them without passing judgment. What do they expect? How can you most effectively institute a change without having people ignore that something is different and needs to be noticed?

 

If communication makes demands, our language needs to consider the values of the recipient so that we effectively stimulate action. If we are asking someone to do something, or believe something, or comprehend a point of view, our words have to align with the worldview of the recipient. This is particularly true if we are asking people to be part of a team or organization, or to do something that benefits society. Drucker’s discussions of the social responsibility of business, for example, emphasize the fact that actions that mitigate negative impacts can be profitable for an organization. It actually can benefit a company to remedy its negative social impacts – not just because it’s “the right thing to do,” but because it is financially beneficial. This kind of thinking would aid communication involving corporate social responsibility, particularly efforts to mitigate climate change.

 

Finally, if communication and information are different and largely opposite – yet interdependent, we need to do a better job of integrating the two, particularly in today’s society that is awash in data. What information is relevant to decisions? How do we glean meaning out of big data? How do we use information as part of effective communication? Simply reporting data is not communication. Communication involves taking information and telling a story, making that information useful to the world of problem solving, decision making, and the often messy practice of management. How do we craft written articles and oral presentations to make data meaningful and useful? We need to consider all of the factors Drucker mentions earlier. How will the data be perceived? As a threat? An opportunity? How can I use language to effectively communicate the meaning of the information? How does the information fit with the expectations of the audience? Is it shocking, or expected? How do I need to convey data to motivate people to act? Information alone won’t motivate, so what words do I use, or do I use pictures or some other method to illustrate the information? In short, what is the best way to present my analysis that will reach my audience and actually make them listen, understand, and respond?


What does effective communication look like in your organization? If language is important, and not just “communication,” shouldn’t we pay attention to how we use it, particularly with the vehicles we have? With all of the media available to us, are we as careful about the words we use as we should be? Language may not be the realm of culture that it was in Drucker’s era, but words do matter, whether they are used on Twitter, email, voicemail, text, or in a meeting on Zoom or in person. In this time of rapid change and response, perhaps it benefits us to slow our response down to make sure we are communicating with each other effectively.

 

 

Sources

Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Drucker, P.F. (1969). “Information, Communication, and Understanding.” Reprinted in The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993, pp. 319-337.

Drucker, P.F. (1992). “Reflections of a Social Ecologist.” Reprinted in The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993, pp. 441-457.

Evans, A., Suklun, H. (2017). “Workplace diversity and intercultural communication: A phenomenological study.” Cogent Business Management, Vol. 4, Issue 1, 5 December.

Ferrazzi, K. (2013). “Managing People: How to Avoid Virtual Miscommunication.” Harvard Business Review, April 12.

Lui, L., Wu, W., McEntire, D. (2021). “Six Cs of pandemic emergency management: A case study of Taiwan’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 64, October.

Trejo, B. (2021). “Zoom Gloom is Real: How to Improve Communication and Connection Without Video.” Forbes, October 7.

Utz, S., Gaiser, F., Wolfers, L. (2022). “Guidance in the chaos: Effects of science communication by virologists during the COVID-19 crisis in in Germany and the role of parasocial phenomena.” Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 31, Issue 6, May 18.

 

 

 

On Decisions and their “Agents”

By Richard Johnson Ph.D. • December 17, 2025
This essay was inspired by an article recently published by Karen Linkletter and Pooya Tabesh (2025). They were in search of the meaning of “decision” in the works of Peter Drucker. To this end, they used Python to identify and locate all the times the word, “decision”, came up in Peter Drucker’s oeuvre . They then characterized the contexts (“themes”) in which the word came up. The result was a nuanced but very clear characterization of the evolution of his thinking on the topic. Here, we will focus on a key theme for Drucker: the case where your decisions involve other people’s decisions and actions . For present purposes, we can start with their statement: One of Drucker’s valuable contributions to the literature on decision-making is his adamance that implementation be built into the decision-making process.” (Linkletter and Tabesh 2025 8) To be clear, “…it is not a surprise that his integration of implementation of and commitment to decisions is part of his process of decision-making. He argues that a decision “has not been made until it has been realized in action.” (2025 8) The question, therefore, is how to make this happen, how to turn an organization from an aggregate of individuals whose decisions may or may not be aligned, into an agent—an entity that makes decisions, implements them, and then ascertains that what was done was, in fact, what was decided, as we try to do when making purely individual decisions. Let’s look at the matter more closely… A few years ago, I read a story about a road crew that was painting a double-yellow line on a highway. In their path was a dead raccoon that had been hit by a car or truck. It was lying right in the middle of the road. The crew didn’t stop. Someone later took a picture of the dead raccoon with a double-yellow line freshly painted right over it. The picture is below. It went viral on the Internet.

Paul Polman: Management, Sustainability, and Stewardship as a Liberal Art

By Robert Kirkland Ph.D. • December 17, 2025
When Paul Polman became CEO of Unilever in 2009, he did not inherit a troubled company. He stepped into a large global enterprise with familiar consumer brands that sat on shelves in cities from Amsterdam to Manila. Even with that scale and reach, the business rested on foundations that were beginning to crack. Public faith in multinational firms was fading, climate change was moving from a distant worry to a financial reality, and investors were increasingly locked into the rhythm of quarterly results that encouraged short term decisions and discouraged real strategy. Polman’s answer was surprisingly philosophical for a leader of such a company. Rather than defend profitability as the central corporate purpose, he attempted to redefine what the company was for. His response may suggest a contemporary expression of Peter Drucker’s idea of Management as a Liberal Art. Drucker described management as a moral undertaking that must be anchored in judgment, responsibility, and service, not only in efficiency or cost control. Redefining Corporate Purpose Soon after taking the role, Polman stunned many investors by ending quarterly earnings guidance. He went further and encouraged investors who focused only on short term returns to place their money elsewhere (Polman and Winston, 2021). The gesture appears to have been meant to reset the company’s relationship with financial markets. Drucker consistently argued that true leadership cannot be tied to the emotional fluctuations of short term financial reporting. By refusing to follow the ninety day cycle, Polman gave Unilever enough breathing space to think about long term issues. He also sent a powerful message inside the company. Unilever would no longer place shareholder extraction above every other consideration. Drucker might say that Polman was returning management to a place where purpose and meaning had priority. Drucker had long argued that institutions must be run for durability and social legitimacy, not just for quarterly outcomes (Drucker, 1946). The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan In 2010, Polman introduced the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, which attempted to grow the company while reducing its environmental footprint (Unilever, 2010). The plan contained measurable goals for carbon emissions, water use, waste, sustainable sourcing, health, hygiene, nutrition, and economic livelihoods in the supply chain (Unilever, 2018). This was not presented as charity. It was presented as the business model itself. This approach fits well with Drucker’s view that a company must justify its existence through contributions to the common good (Drucker, 1946). Polman noted that a company serving billions of consumers could not thrive in a world marked by climate disruption, fragile supply chains, and social instability (Polman and Winston, 2021). He reframed sustainability as a competitive requirement. There are many examples of how this mindset influenced operations, such as targeted efforts to stabilize incomes for small farming communities or reduce water dependency in detergent production. Drucker would likely describe this approach as a return to institutional citizenship, which is the idea that power involves obligation (Drucker, 1989 and 1993). Human Dignity in Management Drucker believed that effective management is inseparable from human dignity. He argued that organizations must offer people both identity and contribution (Drucker, 1946). Polman appeared to take this to heart. Under his leadership, Unilever pushed for higher wages, safer working conditions, and expanded training programs across its vast networks of suppliers and small scale producers (Unilever, 2018). He also shifted language in a revealing way. Polman preferred speaking about farmers and families rather than vendors and suppliers (Polman and Winston, 2021). This change hinted at a deeper moral view of business. It positioned Unilever as a partner invested in the stability of the people who provided its raw materials. That reading fits closely with the idea of management as a liberal art, which sees leadership as an act of stewardship for the growth of people, not just the supervision of tasks (Drucker, 1989). Climate Leadership and Ethical Risk Management Drucker warned that management cannot be reduced to engineering efficiency. Managing also requires wrestling with consequences (Drucker, 1990). Polman pressed Unilever to treat climate risk as a direct business issue. He connected environmental damage to cost volatility, to consumer trust, and to the company’s long term future. Under his leadership, Unilever accelerated its use of renewable energy, sustainable materials, lighter packaging, and lower water use in many products (Unilever, 2010 and 2018). Polman’s climate agenda blended science, logistics, ethics, psychology, and an understanding of global politics. Drucker described this type of synthesis as central to Management as a Liberal Art. Responsible executives, he argued, must integrate many forms of knowledge into decisions (Drucker, 1989 and 1993). Polman framed sustainability as fiduciary responsibility rather than philanthropy. His influence is still visible in the way many global firms now treat environmental commitments as strategy rather than charity. This framing closely reflects Drucker’s view that corporate social responsibility must be rooted in a firm’s core mission, capabilities, and day-to-day operations rather than treated as a separate act of goodwill. By embedding sustainability into Unilever’s strategy and value chain, Polman demonstrated Drucker’s argument that responsible management integrates social obligations into how the business competes and performs, allowing ethical action and profitability to reinforce rather than undermine one another. Reviving Stakeholder Capitalism Polman helped restore credibility to the idea of stakeholder capitalism. He insisted that corporations must serve employees, consumers, suppliers, communities, and the environment rather than focus only on investor returns (Polman and Winston, 2021). He also pushed Unilever to evaluate brand performance partly through its social or health impact (Unilever, 2018). Under this model, brand equity included moral equity. This aligns with Drucker’s view that corporate legitimacy must be earned and never assumed (Drucker, 1989). For Polman, consumer trust was a survival requirement. When customers believe that a firm contributes to a worsening world, the company risks losing not just reputation but also the permission to operate (Drucker, 1990). Moral Leadership and Institutional Courage Polman spoke in moral terms more openly than most executives. He frequently challenged governments that fell short on climate commitments and he encouraged other business leaders to adopt fair labor standards and responsible tax behavior (Polman and Winston, 2021). Drucker argued that real authority is moral before it is positional. Polman’s conduct fits that idea well (Drucker, 1989 and 1990).  Inside the company, Polman asked employees to see themselves as contributors to social improvement and not merely as managers of brands or operations (Unilever, 2010). This practice reflects MLA. Drucker believed that people should find meaning and contribution through their work, not only wages (Drucker, 1989). Performance, Profit, and Purpose Some critics argue that purpose oriented leadership reduces profitability. Polman countered this by pointing to performance. During his tenure, Unilever posted steady growth, especially in emerging markets, improved margins, and delivered strong long term returns (Unilever, 2018). He argued that long term value and social value reinforce one another (Polman and Winston, 2021). Drucker had long dismissed the idea that ethical leadership conflicts with economic effectiveness (Drucker, 1999). Even with strong performance, tension remained. Certain investors disliked the refusal to play the quarterly guidance game. Some environmental advocates believed Unilever could have moved faster on issues such as plastics. Drucker never said that Management as a Liberal Art would eliminate conflict. He said that it would give leaders a moral compass for navigating conflict in a transparent way (Drucker, 1989). Polman seemed to follow that guidance by making tradeoffs visible and by emphasizing choices that protected dignity, stability, and ecological viability (Drucker, 1990). Building a Network of Responsible Institutions After leaving Unilever, Polman co founded Imagine, an organization that works with senior executives to accelerate progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Polman and Winston, 2021). This next step reinforces the idea that sustainability for Polman is a theory of governance rather than a branding strategy. Drucker believed that modern society relies on networks of responsible institutions. These include corporations, governments, and nonprofit organizations that understand their interdependence and act accordingly (Drucker, 1946 and 1993). Polman’s post CEO work attempts to strengthen that network. He is essentially trying to rebuild the trust and cooperation among institutions that Drucker warned could erode in a fragmented society (Drucker, 1999). The Legacy of a Modern Druckerian Paul Polman’s leadership at Unilever provides one of the clearest contemporary examples of Drucker’s idea of Management as a Liberal Art. He treated the corporation as a civic institution rather than a simple profit generator. He wove climate stability, labor dignity, and social inclusion into the core of strategic planning. He asked brands to earn moral legitimacy. He emphasized supply chains as human communities. He took personal risks by arguing that corporations hold responsibility for the future of the planet on which their operations depend (Polman and Winston, 2021). In Drucker’s language, Polman practiced stewardship. He demonstrated that management concerns human beings, the communities they inhabit, and the ecological systems that support them (Drucker, 1989 and 1990). In an era shaped by climate upheaval, inequality, and declining institutional trust, Polman shifted the central question. Instead of asking whether companies can afford to care, he asked whether they can survive if they refuse to care at all. 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. Polman, P., & Winston, A. (2021). Net Positive: How courageous companies thrive by giving more than they take. Harvard Business Review Press. Unilever. (2010). Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. Unilever PLC. Unilever. (2018). Sustainable sourcing and livelihoods progress report. Unilever PLC. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2019). Business leadership for a net-zero economy.

From a Functional to a Free Society-- The End of Economic Man: Drucker's Diagnosis of Totalitarianism

By Bo Yang Ph.D. • December 10, 2025
Peter Drucker suggested that readers view his first three books as a unified body of work: The End of Economic Man(1939), The Future of Industrial Man (1942), and Concept of the Corporation (1946). These works share a common theme: politics. Drucker did not think about politics like scholars who strictly follow modern social science norms. Instead, he viewed politics as part of social ecology and understood political events through the dynamic changes in social ecology. Despite having "corporation" in its title and using General Motors as a case study, Concept of the Corporation is indeed a book about politics. In this work, Drucker attempts to address the main issues that industrial society must resolve: the legitimacy of managerial authority, the status and function of managers and workers, and the power structure of society and organizations. In Drucker's own words, this is a book exploring the specific principles of industrial society. Corresponding to these specific social principles, Drucker had earlier attempted to develop a general social theory, which was the aim of The End of Economic Man and The Future of Industrial Man. The subtitle of The End of Economic Man is "The Origins of Totalitarianism." The book focuses on how society disintegrates in industrial societies and how totalitarianism rises. For Drucker, the real challenge of this topic isn't explaining how Hitler and Mussolini came to power, nor the actions of Germany and Italy in government, military, and economic spheres. Rather, it's understanding why some Europeans accepted clearly absurd totalitarian ideologies, and why others seemed potentially receptive to them. Drucker's writing style is argumentative. He clearly knew that to effectively advance his arguments, he needed to engage with popular theories of his time. Back then, there were two main explanatory approaches to Nazism and Fascism, which Drucker termed "illusions." Some viewed totalitarianism as ordinary political turmoil similar to previous historical revolutions. In their view, totalitarianism was characterized merely by cruelty, disruption of order, propaganda, and manipulation. Others considered totalitarianism a phenomenon unique to Germany and Italy, related to their specific national characters. Drucker thoroughly refuted explanations based on "national character." He believed that any historical approach appealing to "national character" was pseudo-history. Such theories always emphasize that certain events were inevitable in certain places. But all claims of "inevitability" negate human free will and thus deny politics: without human choice, there is no politics. If the rise of totalitarianism were inevitable, there would be no need or possibility to oppose it. Viewing totalitarianism as an ordinary revolution is equally dangerous. This thinking merely emphasizes how bad Nazis and Fascists were. But the real issue is that Europeans were not merely submitting out of fear—they were actually attracted to totalitarianism. And those attracted weren't just the ignorant masses but also well-educated intellectual elites, especially the younger generation. The world cannot defeat totalitarianism through contempt alone, especially if that contempt stems from ignorance. Understanding the enemy is a prerequisite to defeating it. Drucker identified three main characteristics of Nazism and Fascism (totalitarianism is a social type, with Nazism and Fascism being its representatives in industrialized Europe): 1. The complete rejection of freedom and equality, which are the core beliefs of European civilization, without offering any positive alternative beliefs. 2. The complete rejection of the promise of legitimate power. Power must have legitimacy—this is a long-standing tradition in European politics. For power to have legitimacy means that it makes a commitment to the fundamental beliefs of civilization. Totalitarianism denied all European beliefs, thereby liberating power from the burden of responsibility. 3. The discovery and exploitation of mass psychology: in times of absolute despair, the more absurd something is, the more people are willing to believe it. The End of Economic Man develops a diagnosis of totalitarianism around these three characteristics. Drucker offers a deeper insight: totalitarianism is actually a solution to many chronic problems in industrial society. At a time when European industrial society was on the verge of collapse, totalitarians at least identified the problems and offered some solutions. This is why they possessed such magical appeal. Why did totalitarianism completely reject the basic beliefs of European civilization? Drucker's answer: neither traditional capitalism nor Marxist socialism could fulfill their promises of freedom and equality. "Economic Man" in Drucker's book has a different meaning than in Adam Smith's work. "Economic Man" refers to people living in capitalist or socialist societies who believe that through economic progress, a free and equal world would "automatically" emerge. The reality was that capitalism's economic freedom exacerbated social inequality, while socialism not only failed to eliminate inequality but created an even more rigid privileged class. Since neither capitalism nor socialism could "automatically" realize freedom and equality, Europeans lost faith in both systems. Simultaneously, they lost faith in freedom and equality themselves. Throughout European history, people sought freedom and equality in different social domains. In the 19th century, people projected their pursuit of freedom and equality onto the economic sphere. The industrial realities of the 20th century, along with the Great Depression and war, shattered these hopes. People didn't know where else to look for freedom and equality. The emerging totalitarianism offered a subversive answer: freedom and equality aren't worth pursuing; race and the leader are the true beliefs. Why did totalitarianism reject the promise of power legitimacy? One reason was that political power abandoned its responsibility to European core beliefs. Another reason came from the new realities of industrial society. Drucker held a lifelong view: the key distinction between industrial society and 19th-century commercial society was the separation of ownership and management. The role of capitalists was no longer important. Those who truly dominated the social industrial sphere were corporate managers and executives. These people effectively held decisive power but had not gained political and social status matching their power. When a class's power and political status don't match, it doesn't know how to properly use its power. Drucker believed this was a problem all industrial societies must solve. Totalitarianism keenly perceived this issue. The Nazis maintained property rights for business owners but brought the management of factories and companies under government control. This way, social power and political power became unified. This unified power was no longer restricted or regulated—it became the rule itself. Why could totalitarianism make the masses believe absurd things? Because Europeans had nothing left to believe in. Each individual can only understand society and their own life when they have status and function. Those thrown out of normal life by the Great Depression and war lost their status and function. For them, society was a desperate dark jungle. Even those who temporarily kept their jobs didn't know the meaning of their current life. The Nazi system could provide a sense of meaning in this vacuum of meaning—though false, it was timely. Using the wartime economic system, the Nazis created stable employment in a short time. In the Nazi industrial system, both business owners and workers were exploited. But outside the industrial production system, Nazis created various revolutionary organizations and movements. In those organizations and movements, poor workers became leaders, while business owners and professors became servants. In the hysterical revolutionary fervor, people regained status and function. Economic interests were no longer important, freedom and equality were no longer important; being involved in the revolution (status) and dying for it (function) became life's meaning. The Nazis replaced the calm and shrewd "Economic Man" with the hysterical "Heroic Man." Though absurd, this new concept of humanity had appeal. What people needed was not rationality but a sense of meaning that could temporarily fill the void. Those theorists who despised totalitarianism only emphasized its evil. Drucker, however, emphasized its appeal. He viewed totalitarianism as one solution to the crisis of industrial society. From 19th-century commercial society to 20th-century industrial society, the reality of society changed dramatically. 19th-century ideas, institutions, and habits could not solve 20th-century problems. Capitalism could not fulfill its promises about freedom and equality, and neither could Marxism. It was at this point that totalitarianism emerged. Nazism and Fascism attempted to build a new society in a way completely different from European civilization. Drucker said the real danger was not that they couldn't succeed, but that they almost did. They addressed the relationship between political power and social power, proposed alternative beliefs to freedom and equality (though only negative ones), and on this basis provided social members with new status and function. The war against totalitarianism cannot be waged merely through contempt. Defeating totalitarianism is not just a battlefield matter. Those who hate totalitarianism and love freedom must find better solutions than totalitarianism to build a normally functioning and free industrial society. Totalitarianism gave wrong and evil answers. But they at least asked the right questions. Industrial society must address several issues: the legitimacy of power (government power and social power), individual status and function, and society's basic beliefs. These issues became the fundamental threads in Drucker's exploration of industrial society reconstruction in The Future of Industrial Man. The Future of Industrial Man: From Totalitarian Diagnosis to General Social Theory Both The End of Economic Man and The Future of Industrial Man feature the prose style of 19th-century historians. Even today, readers can appreciate the author's profound historical knowledge and wise historical commentary. For today's readers, the real challenge of these two books lies in Drucker's theoretical interests. He doesn't simply narrate history but organizes and explains historical facts using his unique beliefs and methods. In The End of Economic Man, Drucker developed his diagnosis of totalitarianism around three issues: power legitimacy, individual status-function, and society's basic beliefs. In The Future of Industrial Man, he also constructs a general social theory around these three issues. In "What Is A Functioning Society," Drucker explains three sets of tensions that exist in social ecology: 
Show More