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 II

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

El Emprendedor, El Emprendimiento, y La Innovación

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

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part I

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • May 13, 2025
In today’s political environment, particularly in the United States, there is much discussion about the future of democracy. Globally, traditional democratic forms of government are being called into question. Is democracy no longer effective in its ability to represent “the people”? Have democratic governments been hijacked by elite, moneyed interests? Are our institutions no longer effective and in need of some kind of reset or reinvention? The increasing appeal of authoritarian regimes, driven by populist anger, has been the subject of the work of many political scientists and observers (Silver and Fetterolf, 2024, Praet, 2024, Rhodes, 2022). Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) sought to understand the essence of democracy. His motivations and observations can perhaps be instructive to us today as we wrestle with the nature of democracy in the modern era. Alexis de Tocqueville was a member of the French aristocracy in the era immediately following the French Revolution. The revolution, which began in 1789, featured the rejection of the monarchy through violent spectacle, including public beheadings via the newly developed guillotine. Alexis’s father was part of the French government and was briefly imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. Nevertheless, he was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause. In fact, many members of the aristocracy in de Tocqueville’s France understood the motivations behind the revolution and sought to ensure that subsequent governments addressed the extreme economic disparities that were exposed by the violent events of the Reign of Terror. Alexis was educated in the aristocratic tradition, studying political philosophy and theory, history, and law. He was well-versed in the Enlightenment philosophy that influenced the framers of the American Constitution, particularly Montesquieu. Montesquieu argued for separation of powers in governance, which derived from his belief in the human capacity not only for greatness, but also for corruption. This tension between virtue and vice, which Montesquieu saw as a universal condition of humankind throughout time, required guardrails to slow down or inhibit abuse of power. Following the establishment of the French Consulate in 1799, Napoleon rose to lead the French Empire in 1804. After his defeat in the Battle of Waterloo, France restored the monarchy to Charles X. However, this was a constitutional monarchy rather than one based on the rights of heredity. In 1830, France overthrew King Charles X of the House of Bourbon, growing critical of his broken promises for economic relief from taxation to pay off the debt of the Napoleonic Wars. Charles was replaced by his cousin, Louis Philippe, of the House of Orleans. Louis Philippe sought to reform the monarchy, recognizing freedoms such as voting rights. Referred to as the “Citizen King”, he would be one of the last kings to represent France. In essence, France was beginning to understand the inevitable: the past world of a hereditary monarch claiming absolute authority was over, and the constitutional monarchy seemingly could not deliver on the promises of egalitarianism made in 1789. But what would the new form of governance look like? This was not clear. Even though the country had a reformist government, constitutional monarchy still retained elite status/class distinctions to maintain social order.  Alexis de Tocqueville was 25 when Louis Philippe was installed as the Citizen King in the July Revolution of 1830. Believing that democracy would inevitably come to France, de Tocqueville wanted to study that form of government. What did it look like? How could it be a stable form of government? Because the United States of America was the earliest experiment in democracy, de Tocqueville petitioned the king to travel to America to study that country. In particular, de Tocqueville convinced the king to let him study the American penitentiary movement. One of the areas of reform pursued in France was prison reform (prisons in France were notoriously horrible). At the time, America was in the middle of its own reform movement, including the penitentiary system of prison reform. The concept of a penitentiary was brand new. The idea behind it was that, instead of rotting in prison forever, you would be reformed and released back into society if you were truly sorry, or penitent for, your crimes. De Tocqueville visited America in 1831-1832. In addition to prison reform, he witnessed many remarkable developments in American democracy. It was President Andrew Jackson’s first term, which involved substantial political upheaval in America. Jackson was the first President elected “of the people.” He was not a Virginian or New England “blue blood,” like all the presidents before him had been. Jackson was from the frontier, and had built his name on a military career, most notably in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson’s election coincided with the expansion of suffrage to most white males regardless of their property ownership. Jackson was understandably a controversial President; his election gave birth to the Whig party as a political alternative. His fight against the Bank of the U.S. placed him at odds with a rapidly developing commercial middle class. During de Tocqueville’s visit, Americans were participating in a growing reform culture. Abolition, or anti-slavery, was building steam in the nation. William Lloyd Garrison published his first issue of The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper that de Tocqueville read. There were religious revivals, known as the Second Great Awakening, and urban reform movements targeting prostitution, temperance, and of course, prison reform, the purported reason for de Tocqueville’s visit. The discovery of gold on Cherokee land in Georgia in 1828 snowballed into the event eventually known as the Trail of Tears, the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands. Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act made such events legal, and de Tocqueville personally witnessed the removal of the Chocktaw tribe. On a lighter note, this was also a time of incredible technological development. Railroad development and land speculation was beginning, McCormick had just patented his reaper, and de Tocqueville saw the newly opened Erie Canal. While de Tocqueville studied the nature of America’s young democracy nearly 200 years ago, we can leverage his observations with our own experience of facing a changing world where the nature of democracy is being questioned globally. The move towards increasing authoritarianism and populist movements calls into question whether democracy is government by the people or by the elite. Can de Tocqueville’s observations help us assess how we might keep democracies intact or make them more effective? In our next installment, I’ll look at de Tocqueville’s specific observations regarding democracy – particularly those related to the nature of equality. Sources Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (1949). The spirit of the laws. New York: Hafner Pub. Co. Praet, J. (2024). Bringing authoritarianism into the limelight: the implications for populist radical right ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 1-23. Rhodes, B. (2022). After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We’ve Made. Random House. Silver, L. and Fetterolf, J. (2024). Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government? Pew Research Center, February 28. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/ Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.
Show More