Stories of travels from a distant land to a new start, a land of opportunity, have always been my favorite. My friends come from exotic countries like Syria, Yemen, Portugal, Mexico, Guam, Kuwait, and India. Countries rich with culture and history, but they came to leave behind poverty, lack of education, war, so much war, to be in America. It is the American Dream, the thread that all of our families whose origin stems from migration at some point in time share. We all come from other lands in search of a new beginning just at different times. My friends came between the ages of 10 and 19, and started as ranch hands, deli shop workers, students working retail, and farmers. Decades later they are a restaurant owner, chief engineer, gas station owner, retired military, and doting grandma. These hard-working individuals are exemplifying the American Dream. First-generation born American descendants of immigrants face a unique challenge. Though the average mantra of a teenager is ‘my parents wouldn’t understand what it is like’ has been heard by many, especially educators, it is believed and demonstrated in the behaviors of first-generation U.S. born children from immigrant families. Research states that ethnic minority males are most likely to become affiliated with gangs (McDaniel, 2012). Different research posits that the likelihood of gang affiliation has to do with the “composition of the neighborhood” (Herbst, 2013). With that being said, I need to point out that ethnic minorities new to the country tend to live in community together, so one does not negate the other. This generation believes their parents only know of the ‘old country’ and are out of touch with American ideology. Therefore, they look for people who are in the know. Many do not fall into this trap of gang life, but more do from the first-born generation than any other. It is disheartening to know friends and acquaintances have come to this country to create a ‘better life’ for themselves and their offspring only to have a child choose the gang life over family. Social Responsibility and Global Corporate Citizenship Why is this a topic of a business journal, you may ask. We who have come before, who have a foundation here, can support newcomers in their individual growth and family support. Social responsibility, specifically Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), ‘global corporate citizenship,’ and ‘stakeholder management practices’, work on the premise that the welfare of all can be supported by the decisions of businesses (Windsor, 2001). There is an economic, environmental, and social responsibility that organizations have to the general public. Businesses need to have societal benefits in mind because governments do not always do so. Corporate Social Responsibility can be demonstrated in many ways which benefit society. Palacios (2004) posits business can be the positive context of changes in employee citizenship and ‘non-territorial forms of national identity’. As individuals increasingly create self-identity through the workplace and other organizations, it is understandable that societal needs and ‘common concerns’ such as “social equity, human rights and environmental preservation” (p.386) be shared through the business platform (Palacios, 2004). Therefore, education on the prevention of youth affiliation with gangs would be fitting in this context. Gang affiliation negatively affects the health of youth and organizations can have a positive impact. The National Gang Center (NGC) shares risk factors and strategies of intervention and prevention. NGC (2025) posits that youth are enticed by the social activities of a gang or show a range of risk factors, typically 7 or more, that push the individual away from home culture and toward a gang. These risk factors include violence in the home, early dating, academic struggles at school, limited belief in self-success at school, negative labeling by in-groups, concern for safety, community conditions, individual characteristics, peer-group influence, and abuse both physical or sexual (NGC, 2025). Individual characteristics include: “antisocial beliefs, early and persistent noncompliant behavior, early onset aggression/violence, few social ties, high alcohol/drug use, impulsivity, lack of guilt, life stressors, low intelligence, low perceived likelihood of being caught, neutralization, medical/physical condition, mental health problems, poor refusal skills, victim and victimization, family poverty, high parental stress/maternal depression, parent proviolent attitudes, poor parental supervision, poor parent-child relations or communication, sibling antisocial behavior, unhappy parents.” These characteristics are not an exhaustive list and do not include the special circumstance of being a first USA-born child of an immigrant family. Nor do all children with some of these characteristics become gang members. Studies show there is no exact or repeating pattern for why some children and teens chose gang membership, but having 7 or more factors does increase the risk of membership by 13% (NGC, 2025). Researchers indicate that most want to join a gang for socialization, which must be alluring to youths of immigrant families that want to belong to the American culture. Gang Prevention Preventions and interventions include reaching students between 5th and 12 th grades and include positive home, school, neighborhood and community interactions such as extra-curricular activities that build self-esteem and the belief of educational and life fulfillment. A key factor is instilling positive feelings between children and their parents. Positive school factors include improving academic performance, positive and safe school climate, and a positive relationship with key personnel on the campus. Prevention includes a moderate level of parental involvement, which involves warmth and control, the ability to react well to conflict, and positive connections with adults outside of the family unit as explained by McDaniel (2012). Immigrants that I have met are active parents who are actively involved in their children’s education and extracurricular activities, but these parents are combatting an additional issue. Their teens assume their parents do not have knowledge relevant to success in America even though they have proved their ability. McDaniel (2012) states that ethnic minority male children make up the largest percentage of gang members. Their children become friends with gang-affiliated minors who seem more knowledgeable of American current events than immigrant parents from a teen’s perspective. Community involvement in social interventions and gang suppression will lead to organizational change according to the National Gang Center (2025). Organizations presenting risk and protective factors to all employees increases the likelihood of gang prevention and, hopefully, can create willing volunteers to be positive role models in children’s lives for those moments when they don’t listen to their parents. Businesses sharing this knowledge with stakeholders provides support for individuals, organizations, and society. As the numbers of at-risk youth diminish, so do the negative impacts of gangs. This can be achieved through organizations willing to see their social and global influence. Dedicated to A.S. who lived a difficult and short life riddled with the strife of trying to get away from the gang life, which proved easier than getting away from the drugs he was introduced to by that ‘gang family’. To his family and two children who remain. References Dima, J. (2008). A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics : JBE; Dordrecht 82(1) 213-231. Herbst, E. (2013). The likelihood of gang membership: Immigrant generational differences among hispanic youth. A thesis for Graduate College of Bowling Green State University. McDaniel DD. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with gang affiliation among high- risk youth: a public health approach. Inj Prev. 2012 Aug;18(4).253-8. National Gang Center. (2025). Comprehensive Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Model. US Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/spt/Programs/53 Palacios L., J.J. (2004). Corporate Citizenship and Social Responsibility in a Globalized World. Citizenship Studies 8(4). 383–402 Windsor, D. (2001), The future of corporate social responsibility, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(3). 225-256

I had thought that the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was a fairly recent development based on my experience in business and business education. Though two social reformers did not use the term CSR, their actions showed that all stakeholders are responsible for making a positive impact on society. My familiarity with the work of management and social theorist Peter Drucker, who actively published from 1939 to 2005, led me to the conclusion that organizations have a vital role in society. While Drucker may not have used the term CSR, he certainly advocated much of what encompasses this concept. Drucker’s work includes references to the need for social responsibility in business (Drucker and Maciariello, 2008). While recently sitting in a church service, I listened to a recitation of the work of the English theologian John Wesley, who died in the year 1791. Wesley was a social reformer with striking similarities to Drucker. That experience motivated me to look more into the parallels between Wesley and Drucker, and to see the connections of both men’s thoughts to what we now term Corporate Social Responsibility. It seems that this concept is perhaps far older than I thought, showing the sustainability of this idea. A Definition and Use of Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility can be defined as follows: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business practice that involves integrating social, ethical, and environmental concerns into a company's operations. CSR can also be defined as a company's commitment to respecting the interests of its stakeholders (Google Search, 1-27-25). Examples of CSR include ethical leadership and management techniques, environmental involvement, and being fiscally sound and transparent within reason. It is evident that consumers value CSR activities such as limiting carbon footprint and supporting environmentally friendly fabrication solutions. Lately, some have been selecting products based on that business’ social platform. Society has shown through consumer choice and social media that CSR inspired behaviors are preferred. Many consider CSR as a 21 st century concept, but let’s see how earlier social theorists articulated this concept – one in an era before corporations existed. John Wesley (1703-1791) John Wesley, the ‘Founder and Father of Methodism,’ was a priest for the Church of England who later left this denomination to start his own (GCAH, 2025). In 1727, Wesley was given a fellowship at Lincoln College (Vickers, 2003). Westley became a failed missionary in 1735 and three years later began to speak out against predestination doctrine, arguing that grace and redemption were available to all. He began journaling and sharing his evangelical works through ‘field preaching’ (GCAH, 2025; Vickers, 2003). These actions led to speaking out against corruption in the churches of the day and the need for social reform, including abolition of slavery (Vickers, 2003). According to GCAH (2025), he established Methodist Societies and created their charter in 1784. The Methodists continued based on his writings. Murray Norris (2017) concludes that followers of John Wesley did not separate work life from personal religious development. Wesleyans included charitable donations of volunteerism and finances, high work ethic, and greater outreach as part of their religious outpouring. This early form of social responsibility stemmed from Wesley’s work on economics, politics, and social issues such as workplace safety, prison reform, and education (Nutt & Wilson, 2010; Lunn, 2010). Lunn (2010) states that Wesley was focused on the well-being of the individual worker. Instead of relying on organizations to change society, he supported individuals who were champions of social improvements. Wesley grounded his work in the theology that each person is made in God’s image. Even though the majority of the work was for and with individuals, Stranger’s Friend Societies and some private entities supported Wesley’s efforts to equalize the status of individuals regardless of social class (Murray Norris, 2017; Lunn, 2010). Peter Drucker (1909-2005) Peter Drucker, often called the Father of Management, was primarily interested in society, communities within society, and polity according to A Functioning Society published in 2003. Drucker (2003) posits that management is a knowledge-based social function that influences society and economy (p.11). His first book involving corporations was Concepts of Corporation in 1946 though he did not use the phrase Corporate Social Responsibility (Drucker, 2003). Drucker was raised in Austria and went to Germany for both work and education (2003). He was introduced to the issues of a totalitarian dictatorship when Hitler came to power. Drucker worked for a newspaper in Frankfurt at the time and faced first-hand the censorship of the Nazi party. His experiences brought forth the book The End of Economic Man (1938-1939) and later The Future of Industrial Man (1942). Peter Drucker saw that “social institutions” were “power centers within industrial society” (Drucker, 2003, p.11). Later, Drucker focused on the influence management has on the individual worker as well as on individuals themselves. Unlike Wesley, Drucker supported social change through and with organizations in balance with individuals. Concepts he created teach managers to be people-oriented instead of task-oriented and to consider investment in workers to be a pillar of good business. He found that many organizations had the primary drive of financial stability. Though a business must be stable monetarily to be a functioning organization, it is not the only pillar of ‘good business.’ Rao (2021) reminds us that Drucker posits that “people are our greatest asset” (p.6). Time must be spent on investing in employee development. Another example of how Drucker viewed the balance between society/organizations and the individual is the concept of status and function, a term he learned combing the library in Hamburg, Germany at the age of 18 (Drucker, 2003). Status and function is defined by Drucker in terms of how an individual fits within a social group and what that person’s purpose is independent of any social labels or groupings (Drucker, 1942). This is because status defines where an individual fits within the group as an in-group or out-group member and the role given to that person. Function is how an individual sees themselves with respect to life’s purpose and whether the purpose of society fits within a person’s individual viewpoint. There is a symbiotic relationship between status and function (Drucker, 2003). Status and function can be self-defined or group-generated and is tied to social responsibility and discussed above as CSR. Drucker's emphasis on integrity, social responsibility, and ethical behavior ties leadership decisions and actions in these areas to an organization’s sustainability. Drucker points out the need for sustainability in Managing the Non-Profit Organization and the necessity to balance mission, vision, financial stability, resources and marketing (Drucker 1990). One can conclude that these are of equal importance to a for-profit organization as well. Connections between Wesley and Drucker Related to CSR Wesley focused on “slavery, economics and ethics, his work on aid to the poor, prison reform, and education beyond his scriptural teachings” (Lunn, 2010). Drucker held that individuals and organizations needed to lead the standards of society. These two activists spoke to the issues of the time, and people paid attention. Average people began considering the strategies suggested to alleviate concerns, prevent future negatively impacting events, and create better work environments. These gurus of social responsibility pointed out deficits, gave direction, and inspired others. We stakeholders of today’s society need to continue this work. Uses for CSR Today As we continue to shift from the industrial age to knowledge-based work and work in the service industries, we need to maintain balanced organizations that consider social problems in similar regard as they do business issues. Activities that have been categorized with CSR include organizational ethics, environmental issues, philanthropy, ethical responsibility, charitable global giving, community engagement, economic responsibility, and healthy workplace culture (IBM, 2023). I can see connections between these categories and both Drucker and Wesley. Through similar methods, these social reformers created a sustainable societal norm that created a better environment for individuals in the workplace and society as a whole. We need to maintain these ideals by fostering differences in management and organizational climate and culture. Currently, CSR has been associated with job satisfaction, high performance, and employee trust within organizations that are engaged in social responsibility activities (Brieger, 2019). The benefits of CSR go beyond creating equitable workspace. How do we keep these positive behaviors in the forefront of future organizations and constituents? Sustainability Wesley focused on making safe and ethical workplace conditions a priority. Drucker posits that organizations must measure how well they create and maintain work cultures that support the needs of all stakeholders, status and function, financial stability, innovation, and environmental impact. Organizations that create and maintain a focus on CSR topics such as healthy workplace and environmental issues promote a better society while keeping clientele who share the same interests and concerns. This concept of social responsibility goes far beyond corporations. It lends to sustainable organizations. My question is, who will make sure these concepts are carried into the future? We will. References Brieger, S. A. (2019). Too Much of a Good Thing? On the Relationship Between CSR and Employee Work Addiction. Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Nature B.V. Drucker, P. (2003). A Functioning Society. Transaction Publishers Drucker, P. (1990, 2010). Managing the Non-Profit Organization. Harper-Collins, e-books. Drucker, P. (1942). The future of industrial man. Translation Publishers GCAH, Jan 2025. General Commission on Archives & History: John Westley. https://gcah.org/biographies/john-wesley/ Google Search (Jan, 2025). Definition of Corporate Social Responsibility IBM, Dec 2023. What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Found at https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/corporate-social- responsibility#:~:text=Corporate%20social%20responsibility%20is%20the,impact%20is %20measured%20or%20quantified. Murray Norris, C. (2017). Chapter 9 Education, Welfare, and Missions. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198796411.003.0010 Nutt, P.C. & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Handbook of decision making. Wiley-Blackwell Lunn, J. (2010). Religion & Liberty: John Wesley's Social Ethic. 3.6. Action University. Rao, M.S. (2021). Peter Drucker’s Principles, Philosophies, and Practices. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership. 14.2. Swaminathan, S. (2009). Wesley, John (1703–1791), Methodism, and Social Reform. 1-2. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp1559 Vickers, J. A. (2003). John Wesley at 300. Historian, (79), 28-33. https://2q21e1s6o-mp01-y- https-www-proquest-com.proxy.lirn.net/scholarly-journals/john-wesley-at-300/docview/275037337/se-2

Despite current political pressures that may seem at odds with sustainable leadership initiatives, the importance of sustainability remains underscored by robust scientific evidence. Research on stakeholder theory consistently shows that sustainable practices not only mitigate environmental degradation but also enhance long-term economic performance and societal well-being (Parmar et al., 2010). Sustainable leadership involves understanding the long-term impacts of organizational decisions on social, environmental, and financial sectors, emphasizing a holistic approach to value creation. In this regard, boardrooms in recent years have implemented an ESG (environment, social and governance) framework for evaluation of organization’s sustainability (Greenbaum, 2022). In the fast-changing global environment today, effective leadership must continue to go beyond the tried-and-failed models that prioritize short-term gains over enduring sustainability. The traditional focus on immediate profits has long given way to a more integrated approach, where long term success is achieved through balancing economic performance with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. In today’s political environment, while some organizations and their leaders appear to have adjusted their language and policies to align with prevailing political sentiments, these changes often reflect a superficial response rather than a genuine shift in strategy. Many organizations remain acutely aware of the scientific consensus on sustainability and continue to integrate these principles into their core operations, recognizing that the long-term benefits of sustainable practices outweigh short-term political pressures. In conclusion, while political landscapes may shift, the imperative for sustainable leadership remains unwavering. Leaders who ground their strategies in this well-established understanding not only navigate political changes effectively but also champion practices that generate long-term economic prosperity and societal well-being for all stakeholders. References Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445. Greenbaum, K. (2022), The Importance Of Sustainable Leadership. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2022/09/07/the-importance-of-sustainable-leadership/

Motivation and performance in the workplace have been the subject of extensive research, yet a comprehensive understanding of their complexities remains elusive. While many organizations recognize the importance of motivation in driving employee performance, a significant number still approach motivation through simplistic, linear models that fail to capture its depth. Traditional methods, such as annual performance reviews with occasional praise or monetary bonuses, may have some impact, but they are often insufficient in fostering long-term employee engagement and sustained productivity. The relationship between motivation and performance is intricate, requiring a more nuanced and strategic approach from organizations. Motivation plays a crucial role in organizational sustainability. When employees are motivated, they exhibit higher levels of productivity, creativity, and commitment, all of which contribute to an organization’s long-term success (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and sustainability. However, many organizations continue to rely on outdated methods that focus primarily on the provision of extrinsic rewards. While financial incentives, such as salary increases and bonuses, can have a positive impact, research indicates that their effect on motivation is often temporary (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Once the external reward is removed, motivation levels tend to return to their previous state, highlighting the limitations of this approach. In contrast, organizations, and more specifically managers who have invested in fostering an environment that develops genuine engagement and trust, thus increasing motivation within their teams, have recognized the importance of intrinsic rewards. Intrinsic motivation, which arises from within the individual, is driven by factors such as personal growth, job satisfaction, and a sense of purpose (Pink, 2009). Employees who find meaning in their work and feel a sense of autonomy are often more engaged and perform better than those who are solely motivated by external incentives. This aligns with Self-Determination Theory, which emphasizes the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in fostering motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Moreover, this also is consistent with the philosophy of Management as a Liberal Art which highlights the importance of independent decision-making. Despite the emphasis on extrinsic rewards, research suggests that human beings are only driven by them to a certain extent. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (1959) highlights this by distinguishing between hygiene factors (such as salary and job security) and motivators (such as achievement and recognition). While hygiene factors can prevent dissatisfaction, they do not necessarily lead to increased motivation. Instead, true motivation stems from intrinsic factors that align with an individual's values, aspirations, and personal goals. Not every employee seeks to climb the corporate ladder; some may find fulfillment in mastering a specific skill, contributing to a meaningful project, or maintaining a healthy work-life balance. As a result, managers must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and develop a deeper understanding of the psychology behind motivation. Recognizing individual differences and tailoring motivation strategies to align with employees’ unique needs can lead to greater job satisfaction and improved performance (Gagné & Deci, 2005). This means fostering a work environment that promotes autonomy, provides opportunities for growth, and acknowledges employees’ contributions in meaningful ways. Organizations should also consider the long-term implications of their motivation strategies. Rather than merely offering short-term incentives, they should invest in creating a workplace culture that values intrinsic motivation. This can be achieved through leadership development programs, mentorship opportunities, and fostering a sense of community within the organization. When employees feel valued and supported (and listened to), their motivation is more likely to be sustained, ultimately benefiting both the individual and the organization as a whole. One effective strategy is providing employees with opportunities for continuous learning and professional development. Organizations can offer training programs, workshops, and tuition reimbursement to help employees acquire new skills and expand their expertise. When employees see that their company is invested in their growth, they are more likely to remain engaged and committed to their work. Furthermore, providing employees with challenging yet attainable goals can foster a sense of accomplishment and reinforce their intrinsic motivation. Additionally, fostering a culture of recognition and meaningful feedback is essential. While monetary rewards can provide temporary satisfaction, genuine appreciation and acknowledgment of employees' contributions create a lasting impact. Managers can implement regular check-ins, peer recognition programs, and public acknowledgments of achievements to make employees feel valued. When employees receive positive reinforcement for their efforts, they are more likely to stay motivated and take pride in their work.  While financial incentives and extrinsic rewards have their place in workplace motivation, they are not a panacea for enhancing performance. Motivation is a complex and deeply personal phenomenon that requires organizations to adopt a more holistic approach. By understanding the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and recognizing the unique aspirations of employees, organizations can create an environment that fosters sustained motivation and long-term success. Investing in the psychological and professional well-being of employees is not just a moral imperative but a strategic necessity for organizational sustainability. References Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to Work. John Wiley & Sons. Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

In 1995 Daniel Goleman published a groundbreaking book which introduced the leadership/management discipline to emotional intelligence.The book is Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more that IQ (Bantam 1995). Over the last 30 years more than 20 book and hundreds of papers have been published on emotional intelligence (abbreviated as EQ) extolling its effectiveness as a leadership concept. Many of the books were authored by Goleman with his co-writers Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee. Given the current political climate in the United States and the world, the concept of EQ may be even more relevant today than it was 30 years ago. EQ shows an incontrovertible link between a leader’s emotional maturity and their performance as a leader. In the words of Daniel Goleman, “The research on EQ shows that the ‘good guys’—emotionally intelligent men and women—finish first” (Goleman, et al. p.169. 2001). Just as Peter Drucker’s insistence on self-knowledge and the knowing of one’s strengths and weaknesses is the starting point in his essay, Managing Oneself (1999), EQ starts with knowing yourself, including your weaknesses and strengths, and especially your emotions. Drucker also talked about values and manners. Manners is all about people working in close contact with each other and therefore naturally causing friction. He said that workers must be able to cooperate and treat each other with courtesy and respect. In order to do this, they must look inward to make sure they use words like thank-you and please and they know their co-workers’ names and even the names of their family members. He didn’t specifically use the word emotions but was writing about a basic form of emotional intelligence. Goleman, et al. (2001) lists the four components of emotional intelligence in action: 1. Self-awareness: The ability to read your own emotions. Knowing how your moods are affecting others. 2. Self-management: The ability to control your emotions. Don’t let bad moods seize the day; leave them outside the office. 3. Social awareness: The ability to sense other people’s emotions and show that they care. Understand how your words and actions affect other people and be able to change them when their impact is negative. 4. Relationship-management: The ability to build strong personal bonds and use these skills to spread their enthusiasm and solve disagreements, often with humor and kindness. It should be noted that Diamantidou et al. (2024) found a strong link between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership that translates to a positive organizational culture and thus increased organizational effectiveness. In late 2024, Pixar released an animated movie, Inside Out 2. It is a sequel to the movie Inside Out. It is already the highest grossing animated movie in history. The movie is based on emotional intelligence. Daniel Goleman praised the movie and said, it is clever and moves the field of social-emotional learning forward. The leadership literature cites many examples of the value of using films to teach leadership. Wiliams (2006) posits that because films are memorable and a catalyst for thought and discussion, there is always rich dialogue generated, and a better understanding of the concept being taught after watching the movie. The characters in the movie are Riley (the human) and Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, Disgust, and Anxiety (the emotions). Chatbot (2024) explains that watching the movie can help leaders by dramatically showing how emotions influence both personal and social interactions. The movie also depicts such emotional intelligence concepts as self-awareness, self-management, building empathy, the power of vulnerability, leading by example, and the benefits of transparency. REFERENCES: Chatbot, H. How Inside Out 2 Can Improve Your Leadership Skills. Entrepreneurial Leadership. July 30, 2024. Diamantidou, V., Kaitelidou, D., Kalakairinou-Anagnostopoulou, A., and Galanis, P. Organizational Culture, Transformational Leadership and Emotional Intelligence. Journal of International Caring Services Vol. 17 (2). May/August 2024. 1190-1196. Drucker, P. Managing Oneself. (1999) In HBR book, On Managing Yourself. pp. 13-32. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., and McKee, A. (2001). Primal Leadership: The Hidden Driver of Great Performance. In HBR book, On Managing Yourself. pp. 169-188. Wiliams, J. Pirates and Power: What Captain Jack Sparrow, His Friends, and His Foes Can Teach Us About Power Bases. Journal of Leadership Education Vol. 5 (2). Fall 2006. 

Drucker’s claim that “reliance on the expert to predict the outcomes of technology is born out of hubris” (Drucker, 1969, p. 524) still holds and will likely continue to be the same. Each development is caused by and leads to several factors, “each independent in its origins,” with the “outgrowth of a separate discipline with its own experts” (Drucker, 1969, p. 524). Aristotle’s syllogisms (a kind of logical argument) are the reason ChatGPT exists today. The statement above sounds bizarre, but Boolean logic was invented in the 1800s to mathematically represent syllogisms. Claude Shannon, in 1937, demonstrated the use of Boolean algebra in designing electrical circuits, which paved the way for GPUs, programming, digital computers, and AI systems like ChatGPT. Claude Shannon could not have predicted that his design of electrical circuits would someday contribute to the fragmentation of human interaction (social media), digital overload and decision fatigue (social media), erosion of creativity through AI-assisted writing, and increased energy consumption and pollution (large AI models lead to high electricity usage and carbon emissions from data centers). This indicates that “the impacts of technology are often quite indirect and by-products rather than main products” (Drucker, 1969, p. 524). Sometimes, even the most direct use cases of modern technology have unintended adverse consequences, leading to “the cost being more than the worth” (Drucker, 1969, p. 523). The Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) systems in healthcare were designed to reduce medical errors and improve the quality of patient care. However, studies have shown unintended net adverse effects due to clinicians’ overreliance on this technology and diminished critical thinking. CPOE systems with inbuilt clinical decision support (CDS) help clinicians by providing “notifications of drug-drug interactions, warnings about allergies, recommendations for clinical guideline compliance, and more” (Campbell et al., 2007, p. 96). For example, anticoagulants and aspirin are usually not prescribed together. However, this combination is often used for heart protection benefits in coronary care. In this context, using these two drugs together would be helpful, but the CPOE system would trigger an alert warning the clinician. If the clinician relies exclusively on CPOE, they may remove one of the two drugs from the therapy, increasing the potential risk to the patient (Campbell et al., 2007). Going back to the previous example, even if Claude Shannon could foresee all the negative impacts of technological advancements stemming from his invention, he would not have stopped his development, as there were foreseeable immediate and long-term net-positive outcomes, too. As Drucker puts it, in this new age of technology, we need new decision-makers and decision-making processes built on understanding the history and dynamics of technology instead of focusing on predicting the outcomes of technology or determining what is right or wrong (Drucker, 1969).  References Drucker, P. F. (1969). Comment: Is Technology Predictable? Technology and Culture, 10(4), 522-527. https://doi.org/10.2307/3101571 Campbell, E. M., Sittig, D. F., Guappone, K. P., Dykstra, R. H., & Ash, J. S. (2007). Overdependence on technology: an unintended adverse consequence of computerized provider order entry. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2007, 94-98.

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.