Peter Drucker on Social Ecology, Balancing Change and Continuity, and Building a Functioning Society

Byron Ramirez, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

December 7, 2020

Towards the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, Peter F. Drucker became known as the guru of management and as ‘the man who invented management’ (BusinessWeek, 2005). Ever since his “The Concept of the Corporation” (1945), where he examined General Motors, Drucker focused his writings on the structure and internal dynamics of organizations. He spent decades studying the way people work, and the ways managers manage. Drucker also examined how people work under different contexts and environments. For several years, his works primarily focused on private sector organizations, their management practices, programs, and performance.



Over time, however, Drucker seems to have transformed from a management author and consultant into a social ecologist. In his “Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices” (1973), we can see Drucker’s emphasis on managerial tasks, managerial work, managerial tools, managerial responsibilities, and the role of top management, across all organizations, including nonprofits. Some years later Drucker would write “Managing in Turbulent Times” (1980), where he reveals his concern for the future of business, the economy, and society.


Drucker’s works became increasingly permeated with examples of matters surrounding society at large. Drucker would later write “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” (1985), where he advised all organizations, including public-service institutions, to become entrepreneurial in order to survive and prosper in a market economy. Years later, Drucker explained: “My interest in, and concern for, community, society, and polity, goes back a very long time, all the way back to 1927 and 1928.” (Drucker, 2003).


Perhaps one of Drucker’s greatest strengths was his ability to observe the environment that surrounded him. He possessed an uncanny ability to see things that others had not recognized, and to focus on details that many overlooked. Joseph Maciariello, Emeritus Professor of Social Science and Management at the Drucker School of Management, and who collaborated with Drucker on many publications, writes: “One of the most important duties of the social ecologist for Drucker is to identify major trends that have already emerged in the nub but have not yet made their impact felt on the institutions of society.” (Maciariello, 2005).


Drucker believed that freedom and dignity were imperative to building effective organizations in modern society. And he expressed his recognition of these principles. Drucker’s “The Frontiers of Management” (1986) and “The New Realities” (1989) highlighted that changes in society are inevitable, and thus, we must realize that change represents opportunity. Rather than perceiving change as an inconvenience, we should treat it as an opportunity to grow and develop. Moreover, Drucker advises all of us to focus on what to do today in reflection of tomorrow. A few years later, Drucker reveals the focal points of his work. Drucker writes: “Finally there is one continuing theme, from my earliest to my latest book: the freedom, the dignity, the status of the person in modern society, the role and function of organization as instrument of human achievement, human growth and human fulfillment, and the need of the individual for both, society and community.” (Drucker, 1992)


Drucker focused many of his writings on improving society as a whole, and fostering the common good. Drucker writes: “But what I learned from Toennies — and never forgot — is the need for both, a community in which the individual has status, and a society in which the individual has function.” (Drucker, 2003) This particular excerpt embodies the roots of Drucker’s philosophy of management as a liberal art (MLA).


One can observe Drucker’s own transformation by examining his initial works which focus on for-profit organizations to later writings which converged on topics surrounding communities and society. Drucker writes: “I consider myself a social ecologist concerned with man’s man-made environment the way the natural ecologist studies the biological environment.” (Drucker, 1992) In some of his writings, Drucker explains that he perceives himself as a social ecologist who recognizes change and continuity. Drucker states: “Social ecology is a practice. Its aim is to maintain the balance between continuity and conservation on the one hand, and change and innovation on the other.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker adds: “Fundamental to the discipline of social ecology…is the belief in responsibility, in authority grounded incompetence, and in compassion.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker emphasizes these points because he argues that in order for society to improve as a whole, we must look at our existences (lives) as being inter-related, inter-connected. Drucker posits that if organizations and individuals strive toward maintaining the balance between continuity and change, society will benefit.


Drucker explains to us that his work as a social ecologist also evolved over time and that he realized that environmental conditions were changing. Drucker states: “In working on this book I began to realize that totally new — indeed unprecedented — social institutions were rapidly evolving…” (Drucker, 2003) A couple of years later, Drucker tells us: “Our society has become, within an incredibly short fifty years, a society of institutions…” (Maciariello, 2005) These reflections seem to reveal that Drucker acknowledges that he was examining society as if he were an ecologist examining an ecosystem. Drucker writes: “And it soon became obvious to me that work is a central factor in shaping and molding society, social order, and community.” (Drucker, 1992)


Drucker changed as the world that he observed around him was changing. In an attempt to better discern and explain the changes affecting society, Drucker asked poignant questions such as: “But this conclusion then led me to ask: what will, what can take the place of the ‘organic’ community of Toennies’ rural society? What can again integrate individual, community and society in an Industrial Age?” (Drucker, 2003) Drucker’s ability to ask questions and observe patterns allowed him to discern changes in organizations and society.


One of Drucker’s integral concepts is that of a Functioning Society. Central to this visionary concept is the notion that freedom, dignity, and equal opportunity can provide conditions for individuals to find meaning and purpose in their lives, and in turn, individuals will be able to contribute towards the betterment of communities and society. Drucker explains: “Corporations and other businesses are the wealth-producing institutions of society. Without these private sector institutions, our public sector and social sector institutions would not have the resources to function. It is the private sector that provides the resources to fund social and public sector institutions.” (Maciariello, 2005) However, Drucker also realized the importance of other institutions’ role in society. He writes: “The work of society is carried out through different kinds of organizations, each with its own tasks. Three diverse kinds of organizations make up the society of organizations. First there are public sector organizations…then there are private sector organizations…and finally there are social sector organizations.” (Maciariello, 2005)


Drucker was undoubtedly a social ecologist as he was not only examining organisms in the ecosystem (society), but also tracking the relationship amongst organisms (public sector, social sector, and private sector) within the ecosystem (society). Drucker offers this observation: “Each institution is an organ of society. And no organ can survive the body it serves.” (Maciariello, 2005) Drucker shares his understanding and perception of society as a body, and society’s institutions as organs that help sustain the body (society).


The work of a social ecologist involves observing relationships between organisms, explaining what those relationships are, and conceiving ways to improve those relationships. Drucker attempts to improve our understanding of society and the relationships between its organizations by offering some insight. Drucker writes: “Government commands; it tries to obtain compliance. Business supplies; it tries to get paid. The nonprofit institutions however are human-change agents.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker not only understood the relationship between organisms (government, business, and nonprofit), but also tried to explain to us what their roles in society ought to be. Drucker believed that nonprofit organizations would provide human beings with those items that were not produced by either the public or private sector. Consequently, Drucker suggested that in order to meet the needs of individuals in the future, a nonprofit organization must adopt and embrace change, as it is the way to predict the future. Drucker states: “The most effective way to manage change successfully is to create it. The enterprise has to become a change agent.” (Drucker, 2001)


Drucker also believed that organizations (organisms) within society (ecosystem) must focus on what they do best. Maciariello writes: “Drucker believes that for a society to function well, its organizations should be single-purpose institutions….as a result, each organization, whether for-profit or nonprofit, should focus on a single task.” (Maciariello, 2005) It would appear that as Drucker observed society as if it were an ecosystem, he realized that every organism has a role and function to serve within such an ecosystem. Thus, Drucker suggested that each organism seek to do what it is best at doing. Hence, Drucker firmly believed that companies and individuals must build and focus on their strengths.


Also important to Drucker was the notion that social ecology is an important and necessary discipline that must be employed to better understand and improve society. Drucker writes: “But also social ecology as a discipline deals with action.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker argues that one must take action and regard social ecology as a practice. Maciariello, who collaborated with Drucker, adds: “A principal goal of a social ecologist is to help promote continuity in the conserving institutions of society, while advancing change in the inherently destabilizing institutions of a free society.” (Maciariello, 2005) Furthermore, Maciariello explains: “Knowledge workers must become accustomed to the process of creative destruction. They must become change leaders, active in the pursuit of change.” (Maciariello, 2005) Drucker argued that we must understand our environment and observe what is changing or has changed, as change is a constant in the knowledge society.


Ecology is defined as the scientific study of relationships of organisms to one another and to their environment. Furthermore, a biotic community is one where all populations of living organisms, in a given area, interact and interconnect. Drucker studied society as if it were an ecosystem where biotic communities (biomes) are interconnected by physical, biological, and chemical processes. As such, one could argue that society sustains itself through processes similar to photosynthesis, energy flow through food chains, and recycling of nutrients. Just like a biological ecosystem, society contains organisms (organizations) that are capable of carrying on photosynthesis, and thus is able to convert light into organic material. Similarly, organizations are able to produce energy that helps sustain the ecosystem (society).


One can also draw a parallel between society and the human body. A human being is composed of a complex, highly integrated system of cells. Cells specialize and serve a specific purpose. Thus, when an aggregate of similarly differentiated cells merge, they form a tissue. Living tissue is made up of molecules which would never be able to assume the proper structure if energy were not supplied to maintain this level of organization. It is important to understand how cells (humans) obtain their energy and are able to maintain their configuration and sustain life. This is a crucial point as it may help explain and define our role and influence on society.


A cell is comprised of structural parts: cell membrane, nucleus, and cytoplasm. Similarly, human beings are also made up of structural parts: emotional, physical, intellectual, and spiritual. It is important to think of the complexity of humans (cells) when studying society (human body). For instance, a human being may be able to perform effectively if she or he carries a high level of protoplasm (knowledge), which allows her or him to continually carry on dynamic biochemical processes. There are individuals whose “mitochondria” may not contain the same ability to break down glycogen and glucose into water and carbon dioxide, and thus form energy. All individuals are different, just as cells are different. The important point is that when cells (humans) are aggregated, they form a human body (society). Comparatively, when organisms (organizations) are aggregated, they form an ecosystem.


Throughout his body of work Drucker reminds us to identify major trends that have already emerged, but have not yet made an impact on the institutions of society. One can look around and realize that the world continues to change rapidly. While there are continuous emerging technologies aimed at addressing social challenges, we must evaluate what needs to change, and what we ought to maintain. Innovation and technology alone cannot remedy many of the social issues we currently face.


Humans must work together to improve their interactions and relationships while helping to build a society that functions more effectively. It is in the best interest of society that we do so. We should collectively look to build common good and to do so by improving our organizations. We must learn to manage people effectively while giving them an opportunity to develop their full potential. We must nurture freedom and dignity. Thirty years from now, our ecosystem (society) will have changed, and we will need each other as much as we do today. As Drucker once wrote: “No organ can survive the body it serves”.


References

  • Denning, S. (2013). The Founder of 21st Century Management: Peter Drucker. Forbes.
  • Drucker, P. F. (Ed.). (2003). A Functioning Society: Selections from Sixty-five Years of Writing on Community, Society, and Polity. Transaction Publishers.
  • Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper Collins, New York, New York
  • Drucker, P. F. (1980). Managing in Turbulent Times. Harper Business. New York, New York
  • Drucker, P. F. (1992). Reflections of a Social Ecologist. Society, 29(4), 57–64.
  • Drucker, P. F. (1986). The Frontiers of Management. EP Dutton. New York, New York
  • Drucker, P. F. (1989). The New Realities: In Government and Politics, In Economics and Business. Society and World View. Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Drucker, P. F. (2001). The Next Society. The Economist.
  • Editor, (2005). The Man Who Invented Management. Business Week, 28, 102.
  • Maciariello, J. A. (2005). Peter F. Drucker on a Functioning Society. Leader to Leader, 37, 26–34.

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