A Functioning Society and Management as a Liberal Art — Peter Drucker’s Beliefs and Values

Minglo Shao

PUBLISHED:

June 20, 2020

“To make our institutions perform responsibly, autonomously, and on a high level of achievement is thus the only safeguard of freedom and dignity in the pluralist society of institutions. Performing, responsible management is the alternative to tyranny and our only protection against it”. - Peter F. Drucker


World-renowned as “the father of modern management”, Peter Drucker believed that although he was famous for establishing management as a discipline, he was actually a “social ecologist”, and his real concern was the individual’s existence in the social environment. In Drucker’s view, management was a newly emerging tool for improving society and life. He was the author of 39 books, only 15 of which dealt with management. The others were related to community, society, and polity. Only two books —Management for Results and Innovation and Entrepreneurship —were devoted to business management.


Drucker knew that human nature is imperfect, so nothing humans create, including the societies they design, can be perfect. He didn’t hold high expectations or ideals for society; he only hoped that it could be less painful and more tolerant. However, a society still has to have basic functions; it has to provide the people living in it with the conditions for normal life and work, and it has to give individuals identity and status. These functions or conditions are necessary for a society in the same way that normal functions are necessary for a living body.


It is worth noting that society is not the same as nation-state, because “nation-state(government)” and “family” cannot provide the necessary functions of a society. This is evidenced by the fact that some powerful countries have only fragile and fragmented societies. In Drucker’s view, in the industrial age, a normal functioning society must consist of at least three types of institutions: government, business, and non-profit, each of which plays a different and unique role. Individual organizations within each of those categories must have distinctive performances, which requires them to have power centers and decision-making mechanisms. The power centers and decision-making mechanisms should give each individual a place within the organization, allowing them to use their strengths, to play a part and contribute, therefore obtaining livelihood, identity, and status. In the past, nation-state did not have such power centers or decision-making mechanisms; in other words, “management” is the new “polity”. (Drucker collectively refers to all three power centers as “polity”: management systems of business, management systems of nonprofit institutions, and governmental systems of nation-state, because these three sectors all hold power but each has different objectives. Business and non-profit organizations have the power to allocate society’s resources in order to provide specific products and services; the government has the power to arbitrate and intervene to maintain fairness and justice throughout society).


Near Claremont University in the United States, there is a small Drucker memorial — the Drucker House Museum — in what was once Peter Drucker’s California home. On entering the museum, one sees a famous quote in a prominent place facing the entrance of the living room:


“To make our institutions perform responsibly, autonomously, and on a high level of achievement is thus the only safeguard of freedom and dignity in the pluralist society of institutions. Performing, responsible management is the alternative to tyranny and our only protection against it”.


When the museum opened, the Drucker Institute’s colleagues asked themselves, if they were to choose a quote from Drucker’s publications that sums up the significance of his work to the world, what would it be? They eventually chose the above passage.


If you are familiar with Drucker’s life and how his beliefs and values were formed, you’ll surely agree with their choice. From The End of Economic Man, his first book, to A Functioning Society, the last volume that he completed independently, a common thread runs through all his work: resistance to totalitarianism and defense of the individual’s freedom and dignity.


There is a great difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. It was not until the 20th century, with the rapid advancement of human knowledge and capabilities, that conditions arose for the centuries-old tradition of authoritarianism to mutate into totalitarianism. Totalitarianism seeks to thoroughly manipulate and control every human being, flesh and spirit, to expunge their compassion and conscience, transforming them into humanoid machines that fulfill the dreams of individual totalitarian rulers. Under totalitarian rule, loyalty to leaders is everything; personal thoughts, feelings, desires, and goals are superfluous and must be eliminated. The 20th century brought wars, revolutions, and movements that caused unprecedented disasters and human suffering. Whether Nazism (National Socialism), Fascism, or Communism, all are “masterpieces” of totalitarianism. The rise of Hitler and Nazism, which the young Drucker lived through, is among them. To best understand how Drucker’s experiences influenced his beliefs and values, read his Adventures of a Bystander. To see what totalitarianism is and why the masses support it, read his The End of Economic Man, with the subtitle “The Origins of Totalitarianism”.


Fortunately, history’s evolution has not always been so dispiriting. Since the Industrial Revolution, especially from the 1800s onward, in the last 200 years, productivity has increased dramatically, not only creating vast material wealth but also bringing profound changes in the social structure. Eighty years ago, Drucker perceived and pointed out the formation of a new pluralistic, organizational society: Emerging enterprises and nonprofit institutions fill the gaps and empty spaces between “nation-state” (government) and “family” in the social structure of the past.


Based on that foundation, universal education and the rise of the knowledge worker are creating a knowledge economy and a knowledge society, and information technology has accelerated all these changes. It should be noted that “knowledge society” and “knowledge worker” are terms Drucker coined. “Knowledge workers” broadly refers to those who possess and apply specialized knowledge and work to create useful products and services for society. This includes entrepreneurs and executives, professionals, and technicians in any organization, as well as independent professionals, such as accountants, lawyers, consultants, trainers, and so on. Today, in the 21st century, owing to the development of knowledge and the ever-widening area to which it is applied, individuals and individual institutions are no longer alone and helpless. Having mastered certain types of knowledge, they have freedom of choice to decide where and how to work and the power to influence others. Knowledge workers and the knowledge-based organizations they formed no longer resemble traditional intellectuals. Knowledge workers’ unique characteristics are their independence and autonomy. They can integrate resources, build their own organizations or start new businesses, create value, and foster economic, social, cultural, and political changes. Traditional intellectuals depended on and were subject to government authorities, and could only act on platforms provided by those authorities.


This is an epoch-making, far-reaching change that has taken place not only in Western developed countries, Japan, and other democracies but also in many developing countries still under authoritarian or even totalitarian rule, such as in today’s China. In totalitarian countries, rulers instinctively and inevitably treat independent and autonomous organizations and knowledge workers as potential threats, suppressing or even banning them. But this can have only one consequence: the hollowing out of society and the economy, which in turn will undermine the basis on which any regime depends, ultimately leading to totalitarianism's collapse. To put it in popular terms, the wave of freedom and democracy now sweeping the world is irresistible; totalitarian rulers, no matter how ostensibly powerful and arrogant, will inevitably be drowned by it.


A healthy modern society is made up of pluralistic organizations. Of the three organizational categories — government, business, and nonprofit; businesses and nonprofits are comparatively more constrained by the market, the public, and the government. Therefore, their managements are less likely than the government to take the road to totalitarian rule (except for businesses and nonprofits that are de facto government proxies). That’s why, in Drucker’s view, businesses and nonprofits are more important and worthy of hope than governments. Nonetheless, they may still fail to achieve the “performing, responsible” operation that Drucker expects, either due to lack of management or mismanagement, providing space and opportunity for totalitarian governments to monopolize social resources and strip individuals’ rights. The rise of knowledge workers in all organizations, including the Internet-era’s virtual work community, has provided the foundation and conditions for a new era of management, posing a challenge to the traditional “carrot-and-stick” approach to management. In response to this reality, Drucker researched, established, and constantly strove to improve the discipline of modern management.


On January 18, 1999, when he was almost 90 years old, Drucker answered the question, “What is my most important contribution?” This is what he wrote:


“That I focus this discipline (management) on People and Power; on Values, Structure and Constitution; AND ABOVE ALL ON RESPONSIBILITIES - that is focused the Discipline of Management on Management as a truly LIBERAL ART”.


Dubbing management discipline a “liberal art” was Drucker’s brainchild, reflecting his unique perspective on management. This is obviously important, but in his many works, there is little further explanation of it. The most complete exposition is found in the fifteenth chapter of his book The New Realities, entitled "Management as Social Function and Liberal Art”:


“Thirty years ago, the English scientist and novelist C.P. Snow talked of the ‘two cultures’ of contemporary society. Management, however, fits neither Snow’s ‘humanist’ or his ‘scientist.’ It deals with action and application; and its test is results. This makes it a technology. But management also deals with people, their values, their growth and development—and this makes it a humanity. So does it concern with, and impact on, social structure and the community. Indeed as been learnt by everyone who, like this author, has been working with managers of all kinds of institutions for long years, management is deeply involved in spiritual concerns—the nature of man, good and evil.


Management is thus what tradition used to call a liberal art: ‘liberal’ because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; ‘art’ because it is practice and application. Managers draw on all the knowledge and insights of the humanities and the social sciences—on psychology and philosophy, on economics and on history, on the physical sciences and on ethics. But they have to focus this knowledge on effectiveness and results—on healing a sick patient, teaching a student, building a bridge, designing and selling a ‘user-friendly’ software program”.


As one who has many years of practical management experience and has read nearly all of Drucker’s works, I have often pondered why Drucker called management a “liberal art”? I finally realized that this was not just a beautiful and unconventional act but was a characterization of management; it revealed management’s essence and pointed out the proper direction for managerial efforts. At a minimum, this includes the following implications:


First, the most fundamental management issue, or the key to management, is how managers and individual knowledge workers regard and handle the relationship between people and power. Drucker was a Christian. His faith and his life experiences were mutually confirming and had a profound impact on his research and writing. In his view, man should not have power. Only humankind’s creator, God, master of all things, has power. The Creator is always superior to humans. After all, human nature is weak and cannot resist the temptation to acquire power or withstand its trials. Therefore, a person can only possess authority. He is authorized by the Creator because of his character, knowledge, and ability, which are effective only at a certain stage and in certain actions. This is true not only for individuals but for the entire human race. In democratic countries, “the people are sovereign”; their power is also a kind of authorization granted by the Creator. Under this authorization, human beings are only “tools”—they have free will but must also accept responsibility. Human beings are the Creator’s tools and they cannot become masters; They cannot manipulate and control fellow humans according to their own intentions, nor should they become tools for the manipulation and control of others. Only by recognizing this will people gain both humility and a sense of responsibility; only then will fairness and justice—which the Creator alone commands and which can only summon and be revealed to humans—guide their actions. Moreover, people must constantly examine themselves and willingly conform to society's norms and constraints. 


Second, although human nature is imperfect, every person comes from the Creator and bears his image and good intentions. In this sense, they are all equal to each other, all have their value, their creative abilities, and their functions, and should be respected, and encouraged to create. As stated in the American Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, and every person has innate, self-evident and inalienable rights. The fundamental reason why “Drucker’s” management discipline can make a difference stems from just this conviction. Does one believe that every person has goodwill and potential? And does one thus really treat people equally? These core values and convictions ultimately determine whether one can respond to Drucker’s management knowledge and whether one can understand and implement it.


Third, in knowledge societies and knowledge organizations, every worker, to some extent, is both a knowledge worker and an executive. In that, they can use their expertise to authoritatively influence other people and organizations — knowledge is power. But power must be governed by responsibility. And performance and results indicate how effective an executive has been in exercising responsibility. Power that accounts to performance and results is legitimate, that is, it is represents authorized authority; otherwise, it becomes “might”, which Drucker is firmly opposed to. The importance of performance and results lies not only in economic and material aspects but also in the psychological aspects that people tend to overlook. If managers and leaders continually fail to solve real issues, a despairing public will irrationally choose to rely on and obey powers that promise a “perfect society”, and willingly surrender their freedom and dignity. This is why Drucker repeatedly warned that if a management fails, totalitarianism will take its place.


Fourth, does management have other responsibilities besides getting organizations to achieve performance and results? Or to put it another way, are performance and results limited to quantifiable economic gains and wealth? In addition to providing customers with inexpensive, high-quality products and services, and earning reasonable profits for shareholders, can an industrial or commercial enterprise become a good, responsible “social citizen”? Can it help its employees enhance their character and competence, turning the organization into a “moral community”? This might seem too demanding, but it is reasonable. More than ten years ago, I worked with a multinational logistics corporation that asked itself and found it was possible to put it into practice. This means that we must learn to design moral and ethical demands and economic goals into the same workflow, the same set of weighing systems, and into every method, tool, and model of operation. Today, it is gratifying that more and more organizations are beginning to take this issue seriously and responding positively to it in their respective fields.


Fifth, “博雅技藝的管理” (management as a liberal art) or “博雅管理” (liberal-art management) are lovely Chinese translations, but they’re a bit problematic. Judged from the three requirements of translation — 信 xin (fidelity), 達 da (clarity and flow), and 雅 ya (elegance), the rendering is elegant but is not faithful enough to the original. Translated directly into Chinese, “liberal art” would be “free art” (自由的技藝); that is, freedom from restraints, a liberal art that lets people throw off restraints and attain spiritual and physical freedom. To put it another way, to become a free person, one must master an art. In ancient Greece and Rome, only “freemen” were permitted to learn such knowledge and skills; slaves neither needed nor were permitted to study them, because only “freemen” bore the exalted responsibilities of a citizen. However, in the earliest traditional Chinese-character editions of Drucker’s works, “liberal art” was translated as 博雅藝術 boya yishu, probably to take advantage of the positive connotations that terminology has in the Chinese language. I feel that “自由的技藝” (free art) is closer to the original English meaning. “Liberal” is freed. “Art” can be translated as 藝術 yishu, but management must be applied, it must perform and produce results, so it is first and foremost a “skill (技能)”. On the other hand, the management’s object is people’s working. When dealing with people, managers must face the good and evil inherent in human nature, as well as people's ideas — emotional and rational — which can change on a moment’s notice. They also must face the same issues within themselves. When viewed from this angle, management is an “art” involving subjective judgment. Therefore, “art” is more suitably interpreted as技藝. “Liberal” (自由) and “art” (技藝) combined is “liberal art” (自由的技藝).


Finally, I’d like to say, the reason I've taken such pains in translating “liberal art” is not just to produce a “correct” Chinese equivalent. More importantly, it’s to stress that management is not what people commonly mistake it for: a study of how to succeed, either personally or organizationally. Its aim is not to help an enterprise make money or achieve the highest efficiency in production; nor is its aim to help a non-profit organization win a good public reputation. Management aims to allow every person to live in a healthier, less harmful and painful human society and community. It is to allow every worker to freely choose the responsibility one is willing to bear in that society or community, according to one's innate goodwill and potential, to freely use one's talents to create value that is useful to others, thus fulfilling one’s responsibility. Moreover, in the process of that creative work, to live out human dignity and grow into a better and more capable person: They have pragmatic knowledge and skills, but are not arrogant or vain; they pursue psychological and spiritual sublimation, but are not jaded or cynical; they revere the sanctity of natural creation, but are not callous or cold-hearted. As a “social ecologist”, this is what Drucker defined and anticipated —"Management as a Liberal Art” or “liberal-art management”, the terms’ true meaning.


Minglo Shao

Licensee of the “Peter F. Drucker/Peter Drucker” brand in Taiwan and China

Marc Benioff: Reimagining Capitalism through Management as a Liberal Art

By Robert Kirkland Ph.D. • November 4, 2025
When Marc Benioff founded Salesforce in 1999, Silicon Valley had a pretty straightforward playbook which was technological disruption at any cost. Profit, scale, and market capture dominated corporate ambition. Benioff, who worked under Steve Jobs at Apple and explored Buddhist philosophy, was not satisfied with that approach. He envisioned a company that would not only revolutionize enterprise software through the cloud but also redefine the social purpose of business itself. His leadership at Salesforce reflects Peter Drucker's concept of Management as a Liberal Art (MLA). This idea holds that management is not just about efficiency or growth, but about making work human, creating meaning, and building institutions that serve society (Drucker, 1989). Philanthropy as Structure From Salesforce’s inception, Benioff took an unusual approach. He instituted the “1-1-1 model”, pledging one percent of company equity, product, and employee time to philanthropy. This simple yet radical idea embedded social responsibility into the company’s DNA, ensuring that business success translated into community benefit (Salesforce, 2021). Peter Drucker made a similar point in The Concept of the Corporation (1946). He argued that companies cannot operate as "islands of profit" detached from their communities. Benioff's model, now replicated worldwide through the Pledge 1% movement, demonstrates that corporate citizenship can be institutionalized, not just idealized. By formalizing philanthropy as part of corporate structure rather than discretionary charity, Salesforce gave proof to Drucker’s claim that companies can serve as stabilizing social institutions. Human-Centered Leadership Drucker emphasized that management is a humanistic discipline requiring both knowledge and self-awareness. Benioff has consistently modeled this through self-reflection and moral grounding. As a long-time advocate of mindfulness and meditation, he integrates spiritual awareness with corporate purpose. In Trailblazer (2019), Benioff reflects on how introspection informs strategic clarity and ethical leadership. Compassion is a core managerial value for Benioff. This aligns with Drucker’s insistence that good leaders must "engage the whole human being," acknowledging both rational capability and emotional complexity. In cultivating mindfulness as an organizational practice, Benioff turns what Drucker called “self-knowledge” into a shared institutional expectation, not a private exercise. Stakeholder Capitalism in Practice Perhaps Benioff’s most significant Druckerian contribution is his public challenge to shareholder primacy. As a high-profile advocate of stakeholder capitalism, he has urged fellow executives to view not just investors, but also customers, employees, communities, and the planet as legitimate stakeholders in corporate decision-making. Drucker anticipated this shift in 1999 when he argued that institutions must balance individual rights with broader social responsibilities, and that leadership must be anchored in moral purpose rather than short-term gain. Benioff operationalized this at Salesforce by making equality, climate action, and community impact strategic priorities alongside financial metrics. Salesforce has built environmental and social-impact objectives into its leadership accountability and public reporting, positioning those outcomes as core measures of performance rather than PR exercises. In Drucker's terms, this marks a shift from a purely economic mandate to an explicitly ethical one. Building a Meaningful Culture At Salesforce, Benioff’s internal culture emphasizes equality, diversity, and trust. His mantra of “Ohana” a Hawaiian term for family defines the company’s social ethos. Through listening sessions, employee councils, and direct engagement with staff, Benioff attempts to cultivate what Drucker would call a functioning institution: a place where individuals are offered both status and function, and where they derive meaning through active contribution. One concrete expression of this philosophy is Salesforce’s repeated company-wide pay equity audits. The company has publicly acknowledged compensation gaps across gender and race and then allocated millions of dollars to close them. This reflects Drucker’s view that organizations must respect human dignity and align personal fulfillment with collective mission. Benioff’s conviction that fairness can be measured and corrected turns theory into everyday management practice. Balancing Technology and Humanity In Post-Capitalist Society (1993), Drucker identified the rise of the knowledge worker as a defining feature of modern institutions. Salesforce, as a platform for digital collaboration across sales, service, marketing, analytics, and commerce, is organized around those workers. But Benioff’s management philosophy resists the idea that productivity can be reduced to code and dashboards. He argues that innovation begins in empathy and trust, not automation, which echoes Drucker’s warning that management cannot dissolve into technique. At the same time, Salesforce has embraced artificial intelligence through Einstein GPT and autonomous AI agents to automate routine tasks. While this automation has replaced certain roles, Benioff has publicly insisted that human connection remains irreplaceable in high-value work such as enterprise sales, and Salesforce is simultaneously hiring thousands of additional salespeople. By automating repetitive tasks while elevating distinctly human work, Benioff is enacting Drucker’s belief that technology must remain subordinate to judgment, responsibility, and moral purpose (Drucker, 1990). His leadership has also demonstrated Drucker’s axiom that effective management requires balancing continuity with change. Continuity and Change Over two decades, Salesforce has evolved from a single product - customer relationship management delivered via the cloud - to a global platform ecosystem spanning analytics, integration, AI, collaboration, and industry-specific solutions. Yet it’s core values; trust, customer success, innovation, and equality have remained remarkably consistent. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this balance. Salesforce mobilized its logistics network and relationships to support public health responses, sourced and donated medical equipment, and repurposed internal systems to help governments and hospitals. Simultaneously, it accelerated digital transformation for its customers, positioning the company as both economic actor and civic partner. This is management serving society not just stakeholders. Moral Stewardship and Systems Thinking A key aspect of Drucker’s MLA is its interdisciplinary nature. He describes management as a liberal art because it must draw on ethics, psychology, economics, history, and even theology to exercise wise judgment (Drucker, 1989). Benioff exemplifies this approach. He openly blends spiritual language, social justice arguments, civic activism, and technology strategy. He links corporate tax policy to homelessness and public health, climate action to fiduciary duty, and workforce equity to innovation capacity. This is not accidental rhetoric. It is an attempt to widen the frame of what “business leadership” is allowed to talk about. And in doing so, Benioff turns the CEO role into something closer to what Drucker called moral stewardship: the active use of organizational power to strengthen society’s fabric. A Model for the 21st Century Drucker argued that a functioning society depends on institutions that foster responsible citizenship, provide meaningful work, and accept obligations beyond profit. Salesforce’s global initiatives illustrate this principle. Its Climate Action Plan, net-zero commitments, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and Pledge 1% expansion reinforce that corporations can be both market leaders and social institutions. Benioff sees business as a primary vehicle for delivering resources, talent, and problem-solving at scale to communities. Marc Benioff’s work at Salesforce is one of the clearest contemporary examples of Management as a Liberal Art. Through empathy, ethical reflection, institutional responsibility, and systemic awareness, Benioff has redefined 21st century management. Like Drucker, he views organizations as moral communities’ arenas for both performance and purpose. In an era of automation, widening inequality, and environmental crisis, Benioff believes that capitalism can be rehabilitated, but only if leaders understand management not as control, but as stewardship. The liberal art of management is not an outdated ideal; it is a living practice and essential for the legitimacy of business itself.  References Benioff, M. (2019). Trailblazer: The power of business as the greatest platform for change. Currency. Drucker, P. F. (1946). The concept of the corporation. New York: The John Day Company. Drucker, P. F. (1989). The new realities: In government and politics, in economics and business, in society and world view. New York: Harper & Row. Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization. New York: HarperBusiness. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperBusiness. Salesforce. (2021). Philanthropy and the 1-1-1 model. https://www.salesforce.com/company/philanthropy/

Drucker on Soft Power

By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. • November 4, 2025
What is Soft Power? A relatively new concept in the field of leadership is soft power. The term was coined in 1990 by Joseph S. Nye, a leading architect of U.S. foreign policy for six decades. He worked for two U.S. presidents and served as dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government for a decade. Nye believed that whatever helped the world helped the United States. Soft power refers to an organization’s or country’s ability to influence others through attraction rather than coercion or payment. A good example is the aid that the United States gives to other poorer nations to alleviate disease, hunger, poverty, and illiteracy. Nye also discussed “smart power,” which involves using both hard power (military or political might) and soft power. (Nye, 1990). In furtherance of a more peaceful world, the question is whether we want leaders who are oblivious to the effectiveness of soft power and instead use hard power to coerce, threaten, and force people, or leaders who use both soft and hard power to help people. In the short term, hard power typically prevails over soft power, but in the long term, soft power often prevails. Hard power is a short-term solution, whereas soft power has long-lasting results. (Nye, 2025). Clearly, soft power can be more effective for accomplishing goals in many circumstances. However, there are times when hard power can be used in conjunction with soft power — the concept known as smart power — to be more effective in influencing the behavior of others. Sometimes people are attracted to or intimidated by threatening or bullying behavior (hard power). In this case, hard power is more effective because people fear the negative consequences of speaking out against the people in power (Tanis et al. 2025). An example of the failure of hard power can be seen in the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, intended to limit terrorism. The invasion itself, along with brutal images of Abu Ghraib prison and the imprisonment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay Prison without any due process, was shown to increase the recruitment of more terrorists (Nye, 2008). Another example of potential real-life consequences of a leader choosing between hard power and soft power is reported in Foreign Policy Magazine (2025): Joseph Nye was dismayed that the new administration in Washington was using the hard power tactics of threatening, bullying, and ordering, along with canceling the soft power accomplishments of U.S. foreign aid programs. He predicted that they were ceding a United States-led world to one dominated by China, because China understands the potential of soft power. Apparently, the current administration does not. Veteran journalist Andreas Kluth (2025) notes that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the most effective examples of the United States' soft power. It is best known for its humanitarian efforts to combat AIDS, malaria, and starvation abroad. It is estimated that without the work of USAID, an additional 14 million deaths will occur in the next five years. Almost as bad as the deaths is that the goodwill created in numerous foreign countries will be gone. Kluth and the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee (2025) are concerned that China will be stepping into the void of losing USAID. They warn that China now has more soft power than the United States and outspends the United States in foreign aid 40 to 1 in its pursuit of world domination (Kluth 2025). In this regard, Blanchard and Lu (2012) point out a weakening of U.S. soft power since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the US invasion of Iraq, and continuing unilateralism of the United States. Peter Drucker Drucker was born in Vienna, Austria, in 1909, and as a young man witnessed Europe being taken over by the totalitarian, fascist regime of Adolph Hitler starting in the mid to late 1920s and Hitler’s being elevated to Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Drucker knew firsthand that totalitarianism hurts people, and he spent much of his life analyzing its causes and cautioning people against it. According to Drucker, people will not willingly allow their country to become totalitarian if society gives all people status, dignity, respect, and a meaningful place in society. Drucker called this a functioning society. He advocated for a people-centric approach in leadership, where people were given autonomy and no one was left behind or abandoned by society. Although Peter Drucker did not use the term "soft power," upon examining his writings and life’s work, it is clear that he preferred the use of soft power over hard power. His classic invention of Management by Objectives, which gives employees considerable autonomy, is a prime example of soft power (Drucker 1954). He felt that companies had a social dimension as well as an economic purpose (Drucker 1942). He wanted companies to treat workers as an important resource, rather than solely as a cost (Drucker 1993). Drucker would disapprove of the most powerful democracy in the world ceding its world leader status to a totalitarian country, China. The fear is that China being seen as the world leader might influence or encourage other countries to allow dictatorial and autocratic governance (Shlapentokh 2021).  Bardy et al. (2010), in their study of Peter Drucker and ethics in the United States and Europe, posit that Drucker’s good ethics in business efforts ensure that society is being served and that change efforts are successfully brought about by adhering to Drucker’s discourse and right behavior. They said that Drucker was caring and ethical in his treatment of managers and employees, much like a leader who prefers soft power. Drucker was quoted as quoting William Norris; “The purpose of a business is to do well by doing good” (p. 539). Showing his preference for doing good for people demonstrates care ethics (Coorman, 2025), which is mostly what soft power is entails. Conclusion Peter Drucker is renowned for his ability to predict future trends in various domains, including business, economics, and society (Cohen, 2012). Currently, the world seems to be at a crossroads: Will democracy survive? Will we learn how to communicate with each other? We need to remember the wise and ethical teachings of Peter Drucker, especially on the effectiveness of using soft power. Drucker’s blend of practical management advice with profound ethical underpinnings underscores his status as a thought leader who not only understood the mechanics of management but also engaged with the moral implications of leadership within complex societal frameworks. References Bardy, R. & Rubens, A. (2010). Is There a Transatlantic Divide?: Reviewing Peter F. Drucker’s Thoughts on Ethics and Leadership of U.S. and European Managers. Management Decision. Vol. 48. Iss. 4. 528-540. DOI:10.1108/00251741011041337. Cohen, W. (2012). Drucker on Marketing: Lessons from the World’s Most Influential Business Thinker. McGraw Hill. Coorman, L. 2025. Soft Power. Master’s Thesis. Indiana University, Herron School of Art and Design. 2025. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/50513 Drucker, P, (1942). The Future of Industrial Man. Mentor Book/New American Library. Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper & Row. Drucker, P, (1993). The Concept of the Corporation. Routledge. Kluth, A. 2025. How the U.S. is Making China Great Again. The Week. Iss. 12. Aug 2, 2025. Nye, J. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. Basic Books. Nye, J. (2008). Soft Power. Leadership Excellence. Vol. 25. Iss. 4. April 2010. Nye, J. 2024. Invest in Soft Power. Foreign Policy. Sept. 9. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/09/us-soft-power-culture-political-values-democracy-human-rights/ Nye, J. (2025). Obituary. Los Angeles Times, 5/21/25 p. 11. Shlapentokh, D. 2021. Marxism and the Role of the State in the Soviet and Chinese Experience. International Journal of China Studies. Vol. 12. Iss. 1. (Jun. 2021) 157-186. https://2q21dwppn-mp03-y-https-www-proquest-com.proxy.lirn.net/scholarly-journals/marxism-role-state-soviet-chinese-experience/docview/2565686898/se-2. Tanis, F. and Emanuel, G. 2025. To Speak or not to Speak: Why Many Aid Groups are Silent about the Trump Cuts. NPR Weblog Post. August 1, 2025. https://www.proquest.com/abitrade/blogs-podcasts-websites/speak-not-why-many-aid-groups-are-silent-about/docview/3235492953/sem-2?accountid=150887

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.
Show More