Leadership and Uvalde A Case Study

Michael Cortrite PhD

PUBLISHED:

September 23, 2022


 Much analysis has been done of the mass shooting on 5/24/22 at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. I will examine the incident from a leadership perspective. My experiences that might make my opinions worthwhile are:

  • Retired police officer, police supervisor and manager of 32 years 
  • Police trainer for the last 30 years 
  • UCLA graduate with a doctor of education in leadership degree 
  • Graduate school professor of leadership for the last thirteen years 
  • Peter F. Drucker researcher at the Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute (MLARI) at the California Institute of Advanced Management (CIAM), for the last 5 years 

 

There are four areas that would help explain the Uvalde law enforcement response to this incident. They are: 

  1. Basic police academy training 
  2. Fear 
  3. Bystander Effect, particularly Diffusion of Responsibility, and 
  4. Leadership and Autonomy 

I will weigh in on each of these, and I will save what I feel is the most important, a lack of autonomy, for last. 


 

BASIC POLICE ACADEMY TRAINING 

I graduated from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Academy in 1970 and I still train academy recruits at the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance, where most police academies in California send their recruits for a day-long workshop on tolerance. The amount of knowledge the academy imparted on us recruits was impressive. However, my most vivid memory of the academy is that there was a strong focus on officer safety. We were told that out first priority was to go home to our families every night. A lot of the curriculum centered on police officer killings, including photographs of dead police officers. The purpose of this was obviously to reduce the number of police officers killed by scaring us into being more cautious. As far as I can tell from interacting with new recruits, this focus on officer safety is still in effect. It probably saves police officer lives, but, at least in my case, it made me less likely to put myself in danger. I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think recruits should be told that there may be times when officer safety comes in second to saving innocent victims’ lives. 

 

 On August 15, 2022, I spoke with a current police academy instructor from a large police academy. I asked if there was still a large focus on officer safety. The answer I got was “yes and no; the phrase, …first priority was to go home every night… is still used. However the academy also teaches active shooter protocols; that is, …at the scene of a mass shooting officers will advance into the site of any ongoing shooting and act to neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible.” The instructor I spoke to added that they know a police sergeant who does in-service training (training of veteran officers) who tells officers, “If your first priority is to go home at night, look for another job.” 

 

FEAR 

Police officers are human. They react to fear pretty much the same way everybody else does. What would you feel and what would you do if you were asked to confront someone who is armed with one of the deadliest weapons ever devised (commonly known as the AR15) and who has just killed numerous innocent people? Needless to say, the average person would quickly decline for fear of being killed. Police officers have very similar feelings. But police officers have a lot things going for them that should help mitigate their fear compared to the average citizen. Police officers usually have those same AR15-type weapons, training, almost unlimited backup, and hopefully a lot of experience. In case you were wondering, the bullet proof vest will not stop a bullet fired from an AR15-type rifle. 

Personally, I would think back to those lessons at the police academy that I have a responsibility to go home to my family after work. Theoretically, police officers don’t have the luxury of declining to go in after this crazed killer.  I’ll explain this later. 

 

BYSTANDER EFFECT/DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY 

And now a discussion of a very close cousin of fear— the bystander effect. 

The bystander effect refers to the well-documented fact that at any incident, event or scene where bad things are happening, the huge majority of people choose to be bystanders. They simply watch instead of doing something to help the people being victimized. In 1964 a young woman named Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York was murdered. She was coming home to her apartment and was stabbed numerous times with a knife. Even though the murder took place over several minutes just outside her apartment in view of her neighbors, no one did anything to try to stop the attack. In fact, it was later determined that 37 of her neighbors saw the attack and none of them even called the police. 

 

The Genovese case drew international attention and has been studied by social scientists in hundreds of experiments. A particularly powerful part of the bystander effect is diffusion of responsibility (Rentschler 2016), which has been defined as: 


When a person notices a situation and defines it as requiring 

assistance, he or she must then decide if the responsibility to help 

 falls on his or her shoulders… Diffusion of responsibility refers to 

 the fact that as the number of bystanders increases, the personal 

responsibility that an individual bystander feels decreases. As a 

consequence, so does his or her tendency to help  (Brittanica). 


In other words, “Why should I place myself in danger by doing something when some of these other people will probably do something.” Very shortly after the shooting at Robb Elementary School started there were dozens of police officers at the scene, including the Uvalde School District Chief of Police, Peter Arredondo. It looked like most of them were waiting and wishing someone would do something (Sanderson 2020). Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing” (Einstein). And bystanders who are in positions of power (such as Chief Arredondo) are especially dangerous because other people look to them as models. Their lack of action encourages and gives permission to others to be bystanders. 

 

How many people at Robb Elementary looked at Arredondo and were emboldened to be bystanders? I would like to add another phrase to the end of Einstein’s quote; that is, “especially if they are a person in a position of power” (I use “person in a position of power” because according to Dr. Kotter of Harvard Business School, just because someone has a title doesn’t make them a leader. They have to earn the title of leader by their actions) (Kotter 2001). A leader and a bystander are two diametrically opposed positions. A leader is the opposite of a bystander (Cory and Cory 2021, Katz 2016). A leader, by definition, takes action. A bystander, by definition, stands by and watches. In the words of Peter Drucker, writing on the definition of leadership, “Wishing won’t make it so; doing will” (Drucker 1954, p.160). 

 

It’s important to note that in April 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado a mass shooting occurred (15 people were killed). At that time police officers who arrived at the scene waited for the Special Weapons and Tactics team (SWAT) to assemble and come to the scene to deal with the shooters. In 1999 this was the police culture; that is, confronting mass shooters was the domain of specially trained SWAT teams. Since Columbine, police departments have acknowledged that not taking immediate action to neutralize the shooter at a mass shooting increases the likelihood that more people will die. Therefore, policies were universally enacted by police departments to change this culture/tactic; that is, the first officers at the scene of a mass shooting will advance into the site of any ongoing shooting and act to neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible (YOYO Response 2020). This is commonly called the Immediate Action Rapid Deployment (IARD) tactic (IARD 2022). 

 

This change in culture/tactics was huge. It made being a police officer even more dangerous. And keep in mind that, even a small cultural change is difficult and time consuming (Schein 2016). So, this recent (22 years ago) major change in police culture coupled with the bystander effect made it easier for police officers to consciously or sub-consciously succumb to their fears and do what we saw the first officers on the scene at Robb Elementary School do—basically nothing. I suspect that most of these officers looked around and thought something like, “With all these officers here, I’m sure someone is going to do something…soon.” 

 

LEADERSHIP AND AUTONOMY 

This brings us to leadership and autonomy which, I think, is the most important factor that would lead to better law enforcement responses to mass shootings. One of the earliest uses of autonomy in leadership is from Peter Drucker in his 1954 book, The Practice of Management. Drucker described a management strategy he named Management by Objectives (MBO). This strategy was radical for its time in that it suggested, among other things, that management should share responsibility with the employee for deciding how the employee should do their job. In other words, giving the employee autonomy. Today MBO is widely used in various forms (Staunstrub 2022). According to Exchange Leadership, MBO was being used by 79% of Fortune 1000 companies in 2008 (Curtin 2022, Sung et. al., 2022) and others have found that management by objectives positively affects employee engagement and meaningfulness. 

 

Perhaps the best description of leaders using autonomy to motivate employees is from Daniel Pink in his New York Times bestselling book, Drive (Pink 2009). Pink makes the case that one of the most effective ways to motivate people is by giving them as much autonomy as possible. People who get to make their own decisions as to how they are going to do their jobs, will do a much better job. They will be more engaged and prouder of their accomplishment.  Lao Tzu said, “Of the best of leaders, when the task is done, the people say, ‘We did it ourselves” (Heider 1997). Conversely, if people are told what to do and how to do it, they will probably comply, but they will not be committed and will only do the minimum required. 

 

 

A new study (Maran et al. 2022) concurs with Pink on the effect of autonomy on job engagement. They posit that employees, given a high degree of autonomy, are more engaged, higher performers, and better decision makers. When employees are given autonomy, once vision is set, they develop a clearer understand of their goals, and align their decisions with the organization’s vision and goals. And just getting to practice making decisions makes them better decision makers: “This granting autonomy acts as a vitamin for goal achievement” (p. 147). 

 

The Texas House of Representatives Investigative Report on the Robb Elementary Shooting report was published on July 17, 2022 (Texas House of Representatives Investigative Report on the Robb Elementary Shooting 2022). The report cites numerous failures and mistakes by numerous people. This paper will point out only the failures of leadership cited in the report. The report noted several high-ranking law enforcement personnel who exhibited a shocking lack of leadership.  It reported that among the first law enforcement people to arrive at Robb Elementary were Uvalde School District Chief of Police, Peter Arredondo; Uvalde Police Department Acting Chief of Police, Lt. Mariano Pargas; and Uvalde Police Department SWAT Commander, Staff Sgt. Canales. Lt. Pargas told the committee that he and Chief Arredondo never communicated with each other. Staff Sgt. Canales was one of three officers seen in surveillance video approaching the door to classroom 112, where the shooter was. When the shooter shot through the wall the three officers ran away. This was at 11:37 AM. It was 12:50 PM when a U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Team (BORTAC) made entry and confronted the shooter. As Staff Sgt. Canales was exiting the building he was heard to say, “we got to get in there” (p.58). He then helped other officers evacuating children from other classrooms. Cable News Network (CNN) aired a special on August 7, 2022, What Really Happened in Uvalde (CNN 2022). It showed Texas Governor Gregory Abbott at a news conference 24 hours after the shooting saying the law enforcement officers at Uvalde saved lives by running towards the gunfire. There was also video of Staff Sergeant Canales and two other officers running away from classroom 112 when the shooter shot through the wall. 

 

The report states that “The general consensus of witnesses interviewed by the Committee was that officers on the scene assumed that Chief Arredondo was in charge or that they could not tell that anyone was in charge of a scene described by several witnesses as chaos and a ‘cluster’.” 

 

INTERVIEW WITH CHIEF JACQUELINE SEABROOKS 

On 7/30/22 I interviewed retired police chief, Jacqueline Seabrooks. The police department she was chief of at the time had a mass shooting in 2013 (CNN 2013), that by all accounts, even though 5 people died, was a hugely successful law enforcement response. This shooting started at a residential house in the city and ended at the local community college. During her 37-year career Seabrooks was police chief of two different medium size Southern California police departments. She retired from the department where the mass shooting occurred and was chief of the other department for five years. Due to a disastrous law enforcement response to some civil unrest and mass looting in May 2020 (Los Angeles Magazine 2020) she was asked to return to that department where the mass shooting occurred as interim chief for a year.   

 

The questions I asked Seabrooks about her experiences of being the Chief of Police and having the ultimate responsibility for a successful law enforcement response to a mass shooting were: (1) What about your and your staff’s leadership helped make the response to this incident so successful? and (2) What did you learn about leadership from your involvement in this incident? 

 

 Seabrooks mentioned the nationally used Incident Command System (ICS) (ICS 2022) that was immediately put into place when the incident started. This system facilitated several organizations to seamlessly work together under a single command structure. Seabrooks cited an interaction she had with a captain from her department who, in accordance with the ICS system, had declared himself the Incident Commander. (She said that every member of her department is regularly and thoroughly trained in ICS.) She arrived at the incident command post and the captain asked her if she was assuming command. After getting a quick briefing on the situation, she replied, “Certainly not, carry on.” In other words, Seabrooks reinforced in this person that he had the autonomy to continue making decisions about the incident. She was telling him that she trusted him and his competence to do what was needed to successfully carry out their mission. She told me that the people carrying out the mission did not need her sticking her nose into everything. She said that leadership is giving her people what they need, staying out of their way, and being available if they have any questions. Seabrooks said that as a leader she believes that hiring the right people and then trusting them to effectively do their jobs makes for engaged and committed employees at all levels, who are not afraid to lead and make decisions. She said that it appeared that members of law enforcement in Uvalde were not talked about as leaders or told that everyone in an organization can and should be a leader. 

 

 For many years Seabrooks had been inviting the (much smaller) college police department to join the city police department in whatever training they were doing. This made for good relationships and cooperation between the two police departments. So, when it came down to having two city police officers and one college police officer being in the right place at the right time to engage the shooter, they quickly formed a team and neutralized the shooter, thereby saving uncountable lives. They didn’t need to ask for permission; they just did their job. Seabrooks said, “What they did was the opposite of just following orders.” Seabrooks also talked about complacency, the “It can’t happen here” attitude, and the idea that you don’t need a title to be a leader. She has always tried to send a message to employees that, in police work, mental preparedness is just as important as physical preparedness. And every employee should be mentally prepared to take charge of a scene at any time. As a police administrator she has had regular dialogues with subordinates about the fact that police officers are human and there are officers who might freeze up or not commit to putting their lives in jeopardy to save innocent citizens’ lives. These dialogues have the effect of reminding officers of their responsibilities, confronting themselves about these responsibilities, and keeping complacency in check. 

Seabrooks added that a very important part of leadership is also, to keep an eye on the police officers for the foreseeable future, who shot the suspect for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Garrett 2006). 



 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

Historically, law enforcement agencies are conservative and hesitant to move away from command-and-control leadership and towards giving employees more autonomy. However, my experience is that they are slowly becoming more open to the more progressive styles of leadership. A leadership program that was started by the California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training in 1989, the Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute (SBSLI) is very progressive and has trained several thousand front line supervisors from every law enforcement agency in California. 

 

Maybe the Uvalde event is the impetus for law enforcement people in positions of power to start embracing empowerment; hiring and promoting the right people, giving guidance, goals, and vision, and encouraging officers to make as many decisions as possible. 

 

The first officers on the scene at Uvalde didn’t seem to think of themselves as leaders. If they did, they would have made the decision, without being told, to do something. In watching video on the incident, I would call many of these officers unengaged. The reality is that everyone, no matter their title or position, influences other people and is therefore a leader (Sanborn 2006). Everyone should be encouraged to practice being better leaders by honing and practicing their leadership skills. 

For current people in positions of power in law enforcement who are concerned about losing power or feeling unneeded, or “having the inmates run the asylum” Matthew Barzun, former ambassador to the United Kingdom and Sweden, has some advice. He makes a very convincing case that by giving employees more autonomy/power, you are saying to them, “I care for you, trust you, and want you to succeed.” This helps in building a trusting, caring relationship between employee and supervisor and therefore will result in more influence (personal power) and engagement for both employee and supervisor (Barzun 2021). 

 

Peter Arredondo, Uvalde School District Police Chief, was a bystander at the school. The Uvalde shooting might have turned out differently if Arredondo had realized that he was one of those law enforcement officers who would not commit to risking his life to save innocent people, so he should have just stayed away. The report, of course, points out that since the 1999 Columbine tragedy all police officers must be willing to risk their lives without hesitation. And at the Uvalde shooting police officers failed to adhere to their active shooter training. It is unknown if Uvalde police superiors regularly reinforced this training. The Uvalde School District Chief of Police, who was inside the school failed to assume command or to assign anyone else to take command. And, only after 77 minutes did anyone exercise leadership; at that time members of the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Team entered the classroom where the shooter was. The report seems to place blame for the lack of leadership on all Uvalde law enforcement personnel. “The entirety of law enforcement and its training, preparation, and response shares systemic responsibility for the many missed opportunities on that tragic day” (p.7). 


RECOMMENDATIONS 

  • The bystander effect is real and needs to be a subject of regular training for all law enforcement personnel. 
  • Hiring and promotional testing should be about finding leaders, not charismatic people. Demagogues are charismatic. Leaders act with integrity. (Drucker 1964 p.159). The hiring and promotional processes should also take into account whether or not the potential candidates are sure that they can prioritize the lives of innocent citizens over their safety and the safety of their subordinates. 
  • Officer safety is not what it used to be. Police academies need to stress to recruits that starting in 1999 there was a major change in policing policy. Police officers now need to manage their fear and prioritize the lives of innocent citizens over their own safety. 
  • All members of law enforcement should take note that Uvalde law enforcement and the Uvalde School District was a victim of complacency (“It can’t happen here.”) Regular communication and dialogue are the best way to ensure that complacency will not take hold of your organization. 
  • It seems that when an organization is being examined or evaluated, the cliché, “poor communications” always seems to come up. The Uvalde shooting was clearly a case of disastrous communications or lack of communicating altogether, especially from people in positions of power. Every organization can use more practice/training in improving communication. 

 

References 


Anonymous, The YOYO Response, Police Vol.44 Iss.8 Aug. 2020 

 

Barzun, Matthew, The Power of Giving Power Away: How the Best Leaders Learn to Let Go. 

Penguin Random House, New York 2021 

 

Britannica, Diffusion of Responsibility 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/bystander-effect/Diffusion-of-responsibility 

 

Curtin, Joseph, Using Management by Objectives To Improve Performance,  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255645533_Values- 

Exchange_LeadershipR_Using_Management_by_Objectives_Performance_Appraisals_t 

o_Improve_Performance 

 

Cory, David and Cory, Jill. Emotional Intelligence and the Bystander Effect: Being a Leader is the 

 Opposite of Being a Bystander. Webinar August 26, 2021 Emotional Intelligence  

Training Company. https://www.emotionalintelligence.ca/2021/08/emotional- 

intelligence-and-the-bystander-effect/ 

 

CNN, Cable News Network 2013  

 https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/09/justice/california-college-gunman 

 

CNN, Cable News Network 2022 

https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2022/08/04/anderson-cooper-360-special-report-what-really-happened-in-uvalde/  

 

 

Drucker, Peter F., The Practice of Management. Harper & Row. New York 1954 

 

Einstein, Albert. https://philosiblog.com/2011/11/29/the-world-is-a-dangerous-place-to-live- 

not-because-of-the-people-who-are-evil-but-because-of-the-people-who-dont-do- 

anything-about-it/ 

 

Garrett, Ronnie. Don’t Cowboy Up: Healthy Agencies Help Officers Get Out of the Saddle and 

 Ride the Waves of Their Emotions to Keep Stress Disorders at Bay. Law Enforcement  

Technology Vol. 33, Issue 2, Feb. 2006 

 

Heider, John, The Tao of Leadership Humanics New Age, Atlanta 1997 

 

(IARD), Immediate Action Rapid Deployment Tactic Retriev 

https://www.police1.com/police-products/wmd-equipment/ppe/articles/immediate- 

action-rapid-deployment-new-rules-of-engagement-wbXig9LBrPJRnpQh/Page Break 

ICS100, Incident Command System 

 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICS100.pdf 

 

Katz, Jackson. The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help 

 Sourcebooks, Inc. Naperville 2006 

 

Kotter, John P. What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review December 2001, 

 

Los Angeles Magazine, 2022 

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/santa-monica-police-may-31/sions Into Results 

 

Maran, Thomas K.;Baldegger, Urs; Klosel, Kilian, Turning Vi: Unraveling the 

Distinctive Paths of Leading with Vision and Autonomy To Goal Achievement.   

Leadership and Organization Development Journal Vol. 34 No. 1 2022 

 

Pink, Daniel H, Drive: The surprising Truth About What motivates Us Penguin Group New Your 

2009 

 

Rentschler, Carrie Filmic, Witness To the 1964 Kitty Genovese Murder Urban History Vol. 43 Iss. 

4 2016 

 

Sanborn, Mark, You Don’t Need a Title to Be a Leader: how anyone, anywhere Can Make a 

Positive Difference. Waterbook Press, Colorado Springs 2006 

 

 

Sanderson, Catherine, The Bystander effect: The Psychology of Courage and Inaction William 

Collins Publication. London 2020 

 

Schein, Edgar and Schein, Peter, Organizational Leadership and Culture Jossey Bass. New York 

 2016 

 

Staunstrup, Per A., Management. By Objectives is Still Relevant, 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/management-objectives-still-relevant-per-aae-staunstrup/ 

 

Sung, Moon J.; Yoon, Dong-Yeol; Han, Caleb S., Does Job Autonomy Affect Job Engagement? 

Social Behavior and Personality journal Vol. 50 Iss. 5 (2022) 

 

Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting 

Report. 2022 

 https://house.texas.gov/_media/pdf/committees/reports/87interim/Robb-Elementary- 

Investigative-Committee-Report.pdf 

 

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