Peter Drucker escribió extensamente sobre las funciones y responsabilidades de los gerentes y sobre los principios que podrían ayudar a mejorar el desempeño organizacional. En sus obras, Drucker infiere que los individuos que conforman la organización deben cultivar el autoconocimiento, la autoconciencia y desarrollar sus habilidades a través de la aplicación. Aprendemos por primera vez sobre el concepto de la gestión como arte liberal en el libro de Drucker, "The New Realities". En este texto, Drucker se refiere a la gestión como arte liberal: "La gestión es, por lo tanto, lo que la tradición solía llamar un arte liberal - 'liberal' porque trata con los fundamentos del conocimiento, el autoconocimiento, la sabiduría y el liderazgo; 'arte' porque trata con la práctica y la aplicación. Los gerentes recurren a todos los conocimientos e ideas de las humanidades y las ciencias sociales - en la psicología y la filosofía, en la economía y la historia, en las ciencias físicas y la ética. Pero deben enfocar este conocimiento en la efectividad y los resultados." (Drucker, 1989) Drucker argumentó que debemos reconocer que la naturaleza humana es imperfecta, pero que, a través de la observación y la contemplación, y mucha, mucha práctica, la toma de decisiones puede mejorarse. Con el tiempo, a medida que las personas practican la gestión de manera ética y responsable, la comunidad en general se beneficia de las decisiones tomadas en organizaciones responsables y socialmente conscientes. La gestión como arte liberal es un concepto que caracteriza una filosofía, una que se basa en los elementos del conocimiento, el autoconocimiento, la sabiduría y el liderazgo. Esta filosofía implica que cualquier individuo tiene el potencial de crecer y desarrollarse, y convertirse en un gerente efectivo, siempre y cuando este individuo se tome el tiempo para reflexionar, desarrollar habilidades y conocimientos, y adquirir continuamente experiencias que enriquecerán su perspectiva sobre cómo liderar eficazmente a otras personas. Sin embargo, Drucker reconoció que el interés propio interrumpe y, en los peores casos, impide y restringe los esfuerzos de los demás. Como tal, el gerente debe desarrollar la capacidad de observar lo que está ocurriendo dentro y fuera de la organización. Al mismo tiempo, la persona debe desarrollar la autoconciencia y la capacidad de reflexionar sobre su propio comportamiento y las decisiones que toma. Esto incluye analizar cómo las decisiones pueden influir en las acciones y el comportamiento de los demás. Es a través de la autorreflexión y la conciencia que podemos notar lo que ha funcionado, lo que no y lo que podríamos hacer de manera diferente la próxima vez que surja otra situación. Un gerente puede desarrollar inteligencia emocional, utilizando el concepto de Daniel Goleman. Y en el contexto de la gestión como arte liberal, esto es lo que llamaríamos autoconocimiento. Un gerente puede volverse más efectivo y llegar a apoyar el crecimiento y desarrollo de los demás, siempre que aprenda a valorar a las personas por quienes son, y les permita espacio para ser ellos mismos. Pero para hacer esto, el gerente debe aprender a escuchar a los demás, respetarlos y reconocer sus preocupaciones y necesidades. También es importante aprovechar las ideas y sugerencias de las personas para ayudar a encontrar soluciones. Esta es un axioma importante dentro de la gestión como arte liberal. Otro elemento clave de la gestión como arte liberal es la noción de que el individuo debe construir conocimiento. Como tal, la persona debe buscar activamente información, datos, hechos e historias que puedan ayudar a aumentar el conocimiento. Además, podemos mejorar nuestras habilidades gerenciales y decisiones aplicando una perspectiva transdisciplinaria para resolver problemas. La perspectiva transdisciplinaria proporciona al individuo una visión integrada y más holística que combina diferentes puntos de vista de las artes, las humanidades y la ciencia. Drucker postuló que podemos aprender leyendo historia, filosofía y economía, y que la reconciliación de ideas de múltiples disciplinas puede ser beneficiosa para determinar el mejor curso de acción. Drucker sugirió que la consideración cuidadosa de diferentes alternativas y efectos posteriores, contingencias y resultados potenciales, mejoraría las decisiones y permitiría que el individuo se convierta en un tomador de decisiones más efectivo. Según la gestión como arte liberal, es importante que consideremos cómo nuestras acciones influirán en los demás y que asumamos la responsabilidad de nuestras acciones. La gestión como arte liberal postula que las personas se definen a sí mismas (y sirven a la sociedad) a través de la acción responsable. Esto significa que los gerentes efectivos actuarán de manera responsable y con ética, y utilizarán su estatus y poder para promover el bienestar de la organización y su gente. Esto infiere que el individuo actuará con el mejor interés de la organización (y sus partes interesadas) en mente. Actuar con buen juicio, tener lucidez y una mejor comprensión de las situaciones y contextos es lo que llamaríamos ejercer la sabiduría. Para involucrar a las personas y construir mejores organizaciones, y en última instancia contribuir a lo que Drucker llamó una "sociedad funcional", es vital que tratemos a todas las personas dentro de la organización con respeto y dignidad. Y que ayudemos a las personas a crecer y desarrollarse y a encontrar significado en lo que hacen. Así es como se construyen las grandes organizaciones. Esto es lo que llamaríamos liderazgo. Y los líderes dentro de la organización deben ser conscientes de que el mundo evoluciona y que algunas cosas deben cambiar, mientras que otras deben mantenerse. Esto significa equilibrar el cambio y la continuidad y reconocer qué proceso o actividad necesita ser renovado, y cuál otra práctica necesita ser preservada.  La gestión como arte liberal está arraigada en la práctica y la aplicación, en la autorreflexión, en tratar a las personas con dignidad y respeto, y en usar un lente transdisciplinario para ayudar a mejorar las decisiones. Se necesita tiempo para lograr resultados y construir grandes organizaciones. Pero se puede lograr. Y las organizaciones cuyos gerentes pueden practicar y aplicar, y reflexionar y aprender continuamente de sus acciones, tienen más probabilidades de ayudar a construir una mejor comunidad y una sociedad funcional y próspera. Referencias Drucker, Peter F. (2003) A Functioning Society (Routledge, London and New York) Drucker, Peter F. (1989) The New Realities: in Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View (New York: Harper & Row) Goleman, Daniel. (2007) Emotional Intelligence. 10th ed., Bantam Books.

“What does ‘Capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money? And what do ‘Free Markets’ mean when knowledge workers – and no one else can ‘own’ knowledge – are the true assets?” (Peter Drucker, 1999). This issue of my newsletter focuses on features of today’s knowledge work, and what knowledge work might look like in the future. In part one, I discussed some of the challenges associated with measuring knowledge worker productivity. In this installment, I’ll take up Drucker’s concept of “Post-Capitalist Society” and what it might mean for knowledge work in the 21st century. Fear not; this will not be an academic treatise on Marx or Marxism. But central to an understanding of our knowledge-based society is some sense of how previous industrial society was configured and structured. As I argued in the last installment of this newsletter, part of our difficulty with measuring knowledge worker productivity is that we still use the language of industrial capitalism: we measure productivity in terms of output, particularly in quantity. We lack a more modern understanding of what productivity looks like. Why? Marx and Capitalism Marx saw capitalism as a stage in history, as part of a larger pageant of human conflict. In The German Ideology (1845), Marx critiques the idealism of German philosophy as locked in the realm of thought instead of material reality. It is time, he argues, for German philosophers to stop simply criticizing each other regarding implications of spiritual matters (the nature of knowledge, etc.) but rather to address the realities of material life. Marx was reacting to the decline of Hegelian thought, and transformed Hegel’s spiritual dialectic model into dialectical materialism. For Hegel, human development was a process of conflict at the spiritual level, when human understanding is challenged by contradicting experiences and events, leading to a new level of awareness, all guided by “Geist”. Marx took this out of the spiritual realm and grounded it in worldly events; his dialectic model was still one of human transformation and development, but it morphed into a model of class conflict. Dialectical materialism involved observable conflicts in social conditions and economic status that would then be acted upon to create a new social order. Like Drucker, Marx was a social theorist, and was reacting to the dramatic changes he saw happening in his time. Marx and his associate Engels observed the transformation from a rural to an industrial society and the associated social upheavals. Marx and Engels focused on the shift from an economy where value was derived from labor to one that relied on machines and money (capital) to produce the material needs of human beings. The culmination of their efforts was Marx’s massive work, The Capital (Das Kapital), published in three volumes in 1867, 1884, and 1894. The work is an intricate analysis of capitalism as an economic system as well as a social structure. There is no substitute for actually reading the text, but, for our purposes here, Marx had several key points that are germane to our discussion of today’s knowledge society: 1. Labor theory of value : Marx challenged utilitarian viewpoints of value, stating that the value of products lies not in their satisfaction of human wants, but in the human labor used to produce them. Value is in production, not in the end-user’s perception of value. 2. Ownership of means of production : In earlier rural societies (at least those with free labor), labor owned the means of production (its own work). Under capitalism, a ruling class owned the machinery and financial instruments (the capital) necessary to production. They also, in fact, own the labor, as workers no longer have a say in their hours, working conditions, etc. Owners derive unearned income from the labor of workers who are under their control. 3. Alienation: The process of industrial production involves an increasing deskilling of work, meaning workers have less of an association with the larger purpose of the process or output. As labor is divided into more specialized functions, there is increased alienation. 4. Dialectical materialism : As capitalism increases social conflict (class conflict), it sows the seeds of its own demise. It is part of Marx’s historical theory of capitalism as one stage in human development. Eventually, socialism will replace capitalism, and workers will own the means of production, ushering in a new social order. Post-Capitalist Society In 1993, Drucker published Post-Capitalist Society, a book that advances a bold argument about Marx’s theories and the trajectories of history. It was one of his more successful books, and I think he left us with much to think about as we navigate the waters of the new or next knowledge society. Drucker looks back on Marx’s evaluation of capitalism with an historical view, much like Marx looked at Hegelian and other assessments of society in his time. In this sense, Drucker follows in the tradition of European theorists critiquing the ideas of the past, using an historical argument. According to Drucker, the manufacturing economy framed the conversation around society, economics, and politics from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Marx’s labor theory of value dominated discussions, as workers competed to have equal power and voice with owners (capitalists). However, as Drucker argues, the owners of capital (the financial titans of industry) peaked by the First World War, and were replaced by professional managers by the 1950s. The classic dialectic between labor and capital was no longer relevant by the 1950s, as “capitalists” no longer existed. Drucker posits that by the 1970s, “capital” would be in the hands of the workers themselves in the form of pensions, mutual funds, and other collective methods of corporate ownership. According to Drucker, the factors of production were no longer labor or capital, but knowledge by the mid-20thcentury. Knowledge workers owned the capital (pension funds, and later 401ks) and also owned the means/tools of production (knowledge). This perspective upended not only traditional notions of capitalism as viewing labor and capital as the primary inputs for production, but also upset the social order. Moreover, we faced a new economic challenge of measuring productivity in a new way (related to knowledge) but also a social challenge as the old service (manual labor) workers would be left behind. Furthermore, we would face a dichotomy between intellectuals and managers. Both of these conflicts are akin to what Marx alluded to in his reference to dialectical materialism. In essence, while highly critical of Marx, Drucker used a version of Marxist theory to postulate the existence of a “post-capitalist society.” Drucker was no fan of Marx but uses an historical argument and similar language about analysis of inputs (labor and capital, but in Drucker’s case, knowledge). The difference is that Drucker is not engaging in a dialectical process (and not one focused on material concerns alone). According to Drucker, one of the primary reasons that Marx’s worldwide proletarian revolution failed to materialize was the inadequacy of his model of “economic man” (his sole emphasis on material satisfaction as an indicator of society’s wellbeing). Drucker rejected this model of society, arguing for an industrial model of society where the manufacturing plant community provided meaning to the worker. Crucial to defeating the forces of totalitarianism (and Marxism, for that matter) was providing individuals in society with status and function . Status gives people a place in the social structure, whereas function provides individuals with a purpose. Economic meaning was not enough; people needed this larger sense of individual and community meaning. In the early twentieth century, because of the incredible gains in manufacturing productivity, capitalism emerged as the dominant system. However, as society moved away from industrial employment towards knowledge work, this new post-capitalist society presented new challenges – including the possibility for social disorder. Thus, Drucker turned to understanding the “ knowledge society ”, a new stage in human development. According to his analysis, what were the new challenges inherent in this new knowledge society? As we saw in the previous installment of this issue, knowledge worker productivity and its measurement represented one such challenge – one we still face. Drucker also wrestled with questions of worker motivation, social disorder, and compensation disparities. In our next installment, we’ll expand on Drucker’s concerns and see how they might help us understand where we are with our current knowledge society and the challenges we face. 

One cannot manage change. One can only be ahead of it…In a period of upheavals, such as the one we are living in, change is the norm. To be sure, it is painful and risky, and above all, it requires a great deal of very hard work. But unless it is seen as the task of the organization to lead change, the organization…will not survive. Peter Drucker in Management Challenges for the 21 st Century (2001) Alan George Lafley was the CEO of Proctor and Gamble (P&G) from 2000 to 2010 and 2013 to 2016. The Proctor and Gamble Company is a consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was founded in 1837. Today, Proctor and Gamble is healthy and is ranked 55 th in the Forbes Global 2000. In 2000, just before Lafley was appointed CEO, P&G stock dropped by almost 30% in one day, and the next week, it dropped another 11%. P&G lost $85 billion in market capitalization a few months later. Lafley described it as a crisis of confidence; inside the organization, employees were blaming each other, and outside the organization, market analysts and investors were surprised and angry. Retirees were angry over losing half of their profit-sharing nest eggs. The news media used headlines such as “P and G Investor Confidence Shot”, “Trouble in Brand City,” and “Does P&G Still Matter?” It appeared that a major, almost 200-year-old company, was in danger of going out of business. Fortunately, Lafley had the advantage of being familiar with Peter Drucker’s writings and was able to talk with him in person. What follows is an accounting of Lafley's actions using his own experience (P&G was his first CEO job) along with Peter Drucker’s writing and personal advice on sustainability. · One of Drucker’s last works was answering the question, “What is the work of the CEO?” Lafley realized that the CEO is singularly held accountable for the performance and results of the company and acted accordingly. · Trust is needed for sustainability. Trust at P&G had evolved to mean that employees could rely on the company for lifetime jobs. Lafley redefined it as consumers’ trust in the company’s brands and shareholders’ trust in its value as a long-term investment. · The consumer is boss. This mindset was emphasized to all employees. Another more famous Drucker Quote is, “The purpose of a business is to create a customer.” Lafley turned around the company-wide habit of losing touch with customers by emphasizing employees at all levels getting closer to customers. · Lafley listened to Drucker that a company must decide what business you are in (or not in). Lafley took the advice and after careful analysis caused P&G to keep some products and businesses, eliminate some products and businesses, and add some products and businesses. This was also the advice Drucker gave to Jack Welch, General Electric CEO, a few years earlier about streamlining the company by focusing on where to compete and where not to compete. Lafley expanded Drucker’s advice by adding his own statement on sustainability; “We must work on the present to earn the right to invest in the future.” · As published in the Wall Street Journal in January 2005 (The American CEO) Drucker observed that we don’t completely understand the unique role of the CEO; What is the work that only they can do and that they must do? The CEO has the power and the ultimate responsibility for business sustainability. The CEO is the link between the inside of the organization and the outside of the organization. He or she alone experiences the meaningful “outside” the organization and is responsible for understanding it, interpreting it, advocating for it, and presenting it in a way that enables sustainable sales, profit, and total shareholder return. For Lafley, “meaningful outside” can include several stakeholder classes, but it emphasizes the idea that the “Consumer is Boss.” Lafely saw that over the years, P&G employees had been drawn to internal interests, and inward focus is the enemy of growth. It is the CEO’s job to deal with outside stakeholders and have a deep understanding of their competing interests, as well as how those interests correspond with the capabilities and limitations of the organization. And Lafley went to work on reinvigorating focus on “outside the organization stakeholders” while keeping in mind that employees are a company’s most valuable asset. Strengthening relationships with analysts and investors resulted in a better understanding of their wants and needs. · Drucker said that effective CEOs make sure that the performing people are allocated to opportunities, rather than only problems. Lafley took this advice to heart and also reiterated the importance of succession planning. · Avoiding complacency in an organization is a must. The CEO should always ask, “Are we winning with those who matter most and against the very best?” The CEO should ensure that the company’s values, purpose, and standards stay relevant for the present and the future and for the businesses the company is in. CODA When looking at overall company sustainability, the difference in governance between Jack Welch of General Electric and A.G. Lafley of Proctor and Gamble is dramatic This is a potential subject for further research on sustainability. In the leadership literature Lafley is generally rated as a hands-on people person who consistently strived to develop leadership in his employees. He was respectful of employees and valued listening to them. He could be described as a servant leader or a follower of Peter Drucker’s management as a liberal art leadership style. Welch was very competitive and was also described as having a combative and aggressive personality. He stressed shareholder value and the absolute necessity of financial performance. In the name of cost-cutting, he would occasionally order massive layoffs, which caused employee resentment and mistrust. His mantra of “Win at Any Cost” has been said to damage the ethical behavior of employees. When Lafley and Welch were CEOs of their respective companies, the companies thrived. When Welch left GE in 2001 the company had “disappointing results for 2 decades.” When Lafley left P&G in 2016 the company continued to thrive and is still highly rated. Bibliography Silva, A. 2015. What Can We Learn from Great Business Leaders? Journal of Leadership Studies. 23 January 2015. Donlon, J. 2007. Proctor and Gamble. Chief Executive. Iss. 30. December 2007. 58-62. Lafley, A. G. (2009) What Only the CEO Can Do. Harvard Business Review, May 2009

On December 13, 2024, we lost a seminal management philosopher and theorist: Charles Handy. Like Peter Drucker, Handy was a social thinker and management theorist who emphasized the human side of work as more important than profits and valued individual growth and development in organizations. Handy was born in Ireland and studied at Oxford. In 1956, he went to work for Shell, working in Borneo, where he met his future wife, Elizabeth Hill. Disillusioned by corporate life, Handy left Shell in 1962 to study management at MIT in their executive program. Inspired by their humanistic approach, he returned to London in 1967 to start the London Business School. Handy knew Drucker and was a regular keynote speaker at the Global Drucker Forum in Vienna. The two men had much in common in terms of their approaches to management and social theory. Like Drucker, Handy became an author (although, unlike Drucker, Handy was a corporate executive before he turned to writing). Handy wrote not just on business but also society, serving as much as a social ecologist as Drucker was. In his pivotal book, The Age of Unreason (1989), Handy argued for the disruption of discontinuity – resulting in a new world of business, education, and work that was highly unpredictable. He rejected shareholder capitalism and saw the organization as a place for human purpose and fulfillment, based on trust. Like Drucker, Handy advocated federalism in organizations, disseminating authority and responsibility to the lowest possible levels. He also saw “the future that had already happened.” Handy coined the term “portfolio life,” where knowledge workers would increasingly work remotely and for multiple organizations. In the 1980s, he posited that society consisted of “shamrock organizations”: those that had three integrated leaves: full-time employees, outside contractors, and temporary workers. Handy thus foresaw the new “gig economy” and increasingly autonomy of knowledge work. Finally, like Drucker, Handy had a life partner who not only supported his career but was an independent woman with her own interests. Liz Handy, like Doris Drucker, was an entrepreneur who ran an interior design business, and later was a professional photographer and Charles’s business agent.  Minglo Shao, founder of CIAM, remembers Handy as a warm man who made several important contributions to what we see as the fundamentals of Management as a Liberal Art. We are thankful for Handy’s contributions to management theory and social thought, and for his legacy at the Global Drucker Forum in the form of the Charles and Elizabeth Handy Lecture Series.

For 15 years, Charles Handy did us the enormous honor of choosing the Drucker Forum as a privileged platform for delivering his message to the world, and particularly to the younger generation in which he had such faith. Following up on our initial announcement of Charles’ passing Charles Handy (1932–2024) , we are honored to share a selection of his key contributions to the Forum with our wider community. Charles’ brilliant keynotes at the Drucker Forum have become legendary. Normally accessible only to members of the Drucker Society, from today they are available as recordings to the wider public for a period of 30 days. At the first centennial Forum in 2009, Charles talked about his debt to Peter Drucker while outlining his own fundamental management concepts that he had developed over the years. Two years later, he touched on the ideas of Adam Smith and demonstrated how much more to them there was than the celebrated “invisible hand” of self-interest. In his landmark closing address in 2017, pursuing a thread developed in his 2015 book The Second Curve, he called for a management reformation that would turn it into a tool for the common good – thus drawing the first contours of what we would announce six years later as the Next Management . We took to heart his exhortation not to wait for great leaders but “to start small fires in the darkness, until they spread and the whole world is alight with a better vision of what we could do with our businesses”. Management’s "second curve" will be the focus of the “Charles and Elizabeth Handy Lecture Series” in 2025. Following the loss of his beloved wife Elizabeth in 2018 and a severe stroke, Charles was much reduced in mobility in his last years – but not in his determination to continue spreading his message of hope to the world. He couldn’t participate in person in the Drucker Forum 2022, but he participated in a moving online interview with his son Scott, who directed young actors in a short performance of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot by Beckett to illustrate some points.  Charles also contributed valued digital articles for our blog and for Drucker Forum partners. Even during the most difficult period of his life he continued to write and develop his ideas in weekly columns for the Idler magazine. This entailed first memorizing the article, then dictating it and finally reviewing it by having someone it re-read to him – a remarkable feat of memory and determination. The article is a jewel and most appropriate for Christmas and the season of self-reflection. Have a wonderful Christmas, happy holidays and a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Interview with Karen Linkletter at the 16th Global Peter Drucker Forum 2024  Video Interview

Nowhere is management theory demanded more than in managing the knowledge worker, and yet nowhere is management theory more inadequate in addressing a field’s issues than in knowledge work. This is the point Peter Drucker posited in his work Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1991), and to resolve it he came up with six factors that determine the productivity of the management worker. Among these, his final point that management workers “must be treated as an ‘asset’ rather than a ‘cost’” by any given organization is an important concept1. While it only gradually emerged within management theory over the century, it is crucial for any employer and any government to understand and apply if they are to retain a competitive advantage going into the future. Historically, management theory has been about improving the output of the worker through banal efficiency: how to increase the production of steel per head, how to increase the production of cars per hour, how to minimize deficient products, etc. In all these considerations, the worker is a disposable resource. When he is hired, he is set to a particular task that is typically repetitive and thus easily taught, and when he is not needed because of shortcomings in his work, company difficulties, or automation, he is laid off. Referred to as “dumb oxen”, workers were seen in management theory as machines to have productivity squeezed out of. The shift from a majority manufacturing to service-based economy during the first half of the twentieth century changed this dynamic to some extent. The American postwar economic boom introduced the office worker as a common source of employment. This trend continued throughout the conglomerate era of the 1960s and was helped by the decline of the American manufacturing industry in the 1970s. Now in a stage dominated by service and knowledge work, the American economy must approach management differently. The aforementioned cost-asset shift is a demonstration of why this is so, as Drucker’s emphasis on the knowledge worker’s autonomy means that they wield control, not only within their job but over who they should work for as well. This in addition to the high-capital nature of knowledge workers means that the old management theory approach to labor as disposable will backfire catastrophically for any company that tries it with their knowledge workers. It is also important to remember the demographic trends of the United States, and more so the world, in considering why the cost-asset shift is vital. For all of human history until some fifty years ago, population was considered to be in tandem with economic power, given larger populations yielded larger labor forces and consumer markets. Economic growth was thus also correlated with population growth, demonstrated by the historic development of Europe and the United States and the more recent examples of the developing world. Consequently, the worldwide decline in fertility rates, and the decline in population numbers in some developed countries, signals economic decline for the future. In the labor market, smaller populations mean fewer jobs that produce for and service fewer people. Although the knowledge worker has grown in proportion to the total labor market, these demographic declines will affect knowledge workers as well, meaning employers will have a vested interest in retaining their high-capital labor. To enforce this, the cost-asset shift will have to come into play. The wants and needs of the knowledge worker pose a unique challenge in the field of management. Autonomy, for the first time, can be regarded as a significant factor affecting all other aspects of this labor base. What good does a large salary provide a knowledge worker if they don’t feel that they are welcome at an institution? How would they perceive that their work is not being directed towards productive pursuits at their corporation, especially given the brain work and dedication given to it? Of course, the fruits of one’s labor has been a contentious issue in management ever since compensation and workers’ rights became a universal constant with the Industrial Revolution, but this is augmented by the knowledge worker’s particular method of generating value. Given that Drucker poses their largest asset and source of value as their own mind, they will intrinsically have a special attachment to their work almost as their brainchild. Incentivizing the knowledge worker is also only one part of this picture. Per Drucker, the knowledge worker’s labor does not follow the linear relationship between quantity invested and returned. The elaborate nature of knowledge work makes it heavily dependent upon synergy: the right combination of talent can grow an organization by leaps and bounds, while virtually incompatible teams or partnerships can render all potential talent useless. And the human capital cost of the knowledge worker, both in their parents and the state educating them and in cost to their employers, is astronomical compared to all previous kinds of labor. In conclusion, the needs and wants of the knowledge worker must be met adequately, especially in the field of management. Management must almost undergo a revolution to adapt to this novel challenge, for the knowledge worker is the future of economic productivity in the developed world. Those employers that successfully accommodate the demands of this class of talent will eventually reign over those that do not accept that this is the direction economic productivity is headed.  References Drucker, P. F. (1991) Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Harper Business.

What is wisdom? The dictionary says it is knowledge of what is true and right coupled with just judgment as to action. Jennifer Rowley reports that it is the “ability to act critically or practically in a given situation. It is based on ethical judgment related to an individual's belief system.” (Rowley 2006 p. 255). So, wisdom seems to be about deciding on or doing an action based on moral or ethical belief in helping other people. This clearly describes Peter Drucker and his often prescient ideas For the 100 th anniversary of Peter Drucker’s birth, Harvard Business Review dedicated its November 2009 magazine to Drucker. In one of the articles about Drucker by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2009 p. 1), What Would Peter Say? Kanter posits that, Heeding Peter Drucker's wisdom might have helped us avoid—and will help us solve numerous challenges, from restoring trust in business to tackling climate change. He issued early warnings about excessive executive pay, the auto industry’s failure to adapt and innovate, competitive threats from emerging markets, and the perils of neglecting nonprofit organizations and other agents of societal reform. Meynhardt (2010) calls Drucker a towering figure in Twentieth Century management. He says no other writer has had such an impact. He is well-known to practitioners and scholars for his practical wisdom and common sense approach to management as a liberal art. Drucker believed that there is no how-to solution for management practice and education. Doing more of “this” and less of “that” and vice versa is not how Drucker suggests managers do their work. Rather, Drucker relies more on morality and the virtue of practical wisdom to solve problems related to organizations. The virtue that Drucker talks about cannot be taught. It must be experienced and self-developed over time. A good example of this is Drucker’s Management by Objectives (MBO). Drucker does not give technical advice on how to initiate MBO. Rather he wisdomizes his moral convictions that integrating personal needs for autonomy with the quest of submitting one’s efforts to a higher principle (helping people) ensures performance by converting objective needs into personal goals. (Meynhardt, 2010). Peter Drucker published thirty-eight articles in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) and seven times won the McKinsey Award presented annually to the author of the best article published during the previous year in HBR. No other person has won as many McKinsey awards as Drucker The former editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review, Thomas A. Stewart, quotes Peter Drucker; “The few of us who talked of management forty years ago were considered more or less deranged.” Stewart says that this was essentially correct. Harvard Business Review's very mission is to improve management practice. Stewart says this mission is inconceivable without Drucker’s work. Drucker’s work in management planted ideas that are as fruitful today as they ever were. Stewart posits that each year, managers discover extraordinary and immediate relevance in articles and books that were written before they were born or even before their parents were born. Stewart (2016) tries to answer the questions: Why does Drucker’s work endure? and Why is Drucker still relevant? First, was Drucker’s talent for asking the right questions. He had an instinct for being able to not let the urgent drive out the important, for seeing the trees, not just the forest. This allowed him to calmly ask pertinent questions that encouraged clients to find the proper course to take. Secondly, Drucker was able to see whole organizations. Instead of focusing on small particular problems. Ducker had the ability to find the overarching problem as well. Stewart uses Drucker’s 1994 HBR article, The Theory of the Business to make this point. Many people were trying to analyze the problems of IBM and General Motors by looking for root causes and trying to fix the blame. Drucker, on the other hand, argued correctly that the theories and assumptions on which they had managed successfully for many years were outdated. This article is as relevant today as it was in 1994 because Drucker took the “big picture view.” And no one else has ever been so skillful at describing it. Thirdly, starting in 1934, Drucker spent two years at General Motors with the legendary Alfred P. Sloan, immersed in the workings of the automaker and learning the business from within. This allowed him to talk with authority, but he has always stayed “street smart and wise.” This mentoring helped give Drucker the gift of being able to reason inductively and deductively. He could infer a new principle or a theory from a set of data or being confronted with a particular problem; he could find the right principle to apply to solve it. Drucker’s first article published in HBR, Management Must Manage, challenged managers to learn their profession not in terms of prerogatives but in terms of their responsibilities, to assume the burden of leadership rather than the mantle of privilege. Many in the management/leadership field probably found Drucker to be “deranged,” but in 2024, this is important advice for leader (Stewart 2006). Just a few more of Drucker’s ideas that seemed well outside the mainstream when he proposed them but are standard practice today include: Managing Oneself, Privatization, Decentralization, Knowledge Workers, Management by Objectives, Charismatic Leadership Being Overrated, CEO Outsize Pay Packages, and Enthusiasm of the Work of the Salvation Army (Rees, 2014). Clearly, Drucker remains relevant! References: Kanter, R. 2009. What would Peter say? Harvard Business Review. November, 2009. Meynhardt, T. 2010. The practical wisdom of Peter Drucker: Roots in the Christian tradition. Journal of Management Development Vol. 29. No. 7/8. Rees, M. 2014 The wisdom of Peter Drucker. Wall Street Journal. Dec. 12, 2014. Rowley, J. 2006. Where is the knowledge that we have lost in knowledge? Journal of Documentation. Vol. 62, Iss. 2. 251-270. Stewart, T. 2006. Classic Drucker. Editor Thomas A. Stewart. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.