Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

Do Words Matter?

Karen Linkletter, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

Nov 16, 2022

Peter Drucker's distinction between language and communication

Peter Drucker made a clear distinction in his writing between language and communication. For Drucker, language was part of culture. It was “substance…the cement that holds humanity together. It creates community and communion” (Drucker, 1992). Language was not just communication. It was something much more important. In our current time, I don’t think we share this respect for language. With the explosion of social media, it has become too easy to type a few words into a text or a tweet, or even an email, and expect that the reader will understand the essence of that communication.


I’ve been leading a course on Drucker Philosophy and Theory 101 for faculty and administrators at CIAM, as well as participants from MLARI, since the summer. Although we’ve been delving into the intricacies of Drucker’s ideas and how to implement them, our sessions have focused on Drucker’s language; what did Drucker actually SAY about topics such as a functioning society of organizations, or management as a liberal art? What role do words play in how we interpret meaning – in short, how do words function in communication?


Communication can take many forms that are nonverbal: body language, facial expression, tone, etc. These are very important, particularly as we emerge from a remote world where many of us are rusty in using these kinds of communication skills. But the role of verbal communication is crucial to any society, particularly a society of organizations where people need to convey complex ideas and information.


Drucker was well aware of the problem of communicating. In a paper presented in 1969, he stated that “communications has [sic] proven as elusive as the Unicorn” (Drucker, 1993, p. 320). Despite the increased focus on the subject, managers in the mid-twentieth century were woefully poor at this skill. Can we argue that the same is not true for today in any sector (government, for-profit, health care, education) save for some exceptions?


I suppose we need to clarify what “effective communication” looks like. In today’s world, communication can look like a Zoom meeting, a tweet, a social media post, a highly-scripted interview, or an administratively-driven process of internal interactions. Are these effective forms of communication for organizations? They can be, but, if misused or poorly crafted, they can be remarkably ineffective.


In his seminal work, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (1974), Drucker cited four fundamentals of communication:

·     Communication is perception

·     Communication is expectation

·     Communication makes demands

·     Communication and information are different and indeed largely opposite – yet interdependent (Drucker, 1974, p. 391).


Much of this material derives from the 1969 paper presented to the Fellows of the International Academy of Management in Tokyo.


Communication is perception: Drucker has a lot to say about this, but I can summarize: Did he/she/they “get it”? You may be an incredible speaker (or writer), or you may not be. The point is: did your audience get what you were trying to convey? If not, why? Was it the words you used, the delivery, the body language, etc. It’s hard to admit that, even though you are a professional speaker or writer, “it is the recipient who communicates. The so-called communicator, the person who emits the communication, does not communicate. He or she utters. Unless there is someone who hears, there is no communication” (Drucker, 1974, p. 391). That’s a hard pill to swallow if you fancy yourself an eloquent speaker, leader, or teacher. But it really doesn’t matter, does it? What matters is whether or not your “utterance” was understood. And was it understood the way you intended?  You may think you conveyed an idea or thought, but the language you used may have been perceived in a different way due to cultural differences, gender or ethnic conflicts, class inequalities, or other sources of miscommunication (see, for example, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2017.1408943).


Our more recent problems with communication and perception have to do with virtual interactions that accelerated during the pandemic and have remained an integral part of how we talk to each other. Various platforms have attempted to upgrade their interfaces to improve communication, such as features that allow one to avoid seeing themselves (which can be distracting, as some tend to focus on their appearance rather than on the content of the meeting or the reactions of others). How can you assess the perception of your Zoom audience during a presentation? Especially when the cameras are turned off? Many have lost their perception skills because of the reliance on technology rather than face-to-face interactions. What does that emoji mean? How do I interpret the exclamation point in that text? Drucker’s first element of communication – perception – is difficult to assess virtually. Is it any wonder we are so poor at real communication today? (See https://www.harvardbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HBR_How_to_Avoid_Virtual_Miscommunication-1.pdf, and https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/10/07/zoom-gloom-is-real-how-to-improve-communication-and-connection-without-video/?sh=63c86ebd243d)


Communication is expectation: Humans try to make sense out of our worlds and assemble information into some kind of order. We all have a set of expectations based on experience that influence our processing of information. In Drucker’s words, “We see largely what we expect to see, and we hear largely what we expect to hear” (Drucker, 1974, p. 393). The unexpected is either ignored or largely misunderstood. People try to fit information into their existing framework or understanding of how things work.


We have to understand what people expect to see and hear before we can effectively communicate. If information fits within someone’s expectations, it will be perceived. If the message is contrary to the recipient’s expectations, that must be clearly signaled. The worst mistake is to attempt “a gradual change in which the mind is supposedly led by small steps to realize that what is perceived is not what it expects” (Drucker, 1974, p. 393). This only reinforces expectations. Instead, clearly communicate that “This is different!”, creating an awakening that breaks through expectations.


This is easier said than done! Such a signal can create a sense of panic or distress, as it implies the need for a change in approach, strategy, outlook, and/or tactics. In the United States, the poor messaging with respect to public health measures needed to combat the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the dangers of mismanaging human expectation in communications. In the early stages of the pandemic, when data were limited, public communications did not emphasize that this was, in fact, a novel coronavirus, and that the potential threat was unique and serious. As a result, much of the public discounted later attempts to curb mortality rates through lockdowns, distancing, and masking. The COVID-19 pandemic did not fit within anyone’s expectations (save for the handful of experts trained in virology and public health). Yet, other nations, notably Germany, Taiwan, and South Korea took the threat seriously, communicated it effectively, and managed to avoid significant deaths in the early stages of the pandemic. Researchers are evaluating the various responses to the pandemic, and how the public reacted to communications from scientists and government representatives (see, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921004775 and

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09636625221093194

 

Communication makes demands: In his 1969 paper, Drucker used the subtitle “Communication is Involvement” (Drucker, 1993, p. 326). That header actual encapsulates his argument more effectively; he likely modified it to appeal to a management audience in his later work. Drucker says that communication “always demands that that the recipient become somebody, do something, believe something. It always appeals to motivation. If communication fits in with the aspirations, values and purposes of the recipient, it is powerful. If it goes against them, it is likely not to be received at all…By and large, therefore, there is no communication unless the message can key in to the recipient’s own values [emphasis mine],” (Drucker, 1974, p. 395). I think this is possibly the most important message Drucker gives us about communication. Real communication involves some kind of expectation of action. A salesperson asks for the order. A human resources manager requests her team to implement a new policy. A non-profit director asks volunteers to show up for an important event. Drucker remarks that “Communication is always ‘propaganda’” (Drucker, 1974, p. 394), but, frankly, I find his word usage ineffective here. Propaganda is associated with the misuse of language - the attempt to promote a biased perspective or a particular point of view. But the point that communication expects some kind of action - physical, intellectual, or spiritual – is important. Clear communication is not propaganda. It conveys information that is congruent with values that are shared by the individual and the organization (or the communicator). If a leader asks team members to participate in a project, the project needs to make sense in terms of the organization’s values and objectives, as well as the individual participants’ sense of purpose and meaning. This is why it is so critical for organizations to make sure that team members share the same values and goals of the larger institution. If individuals are not aligned with a higher purpose, their efforts are solely their own, with no greater function. Communication that asks them to do something for the “team,” or the “organization,” or “society” will not be received. Conversely, organizations need to make sure that they are communicating in a way that speaks to the motivations of the individual; how will that person grow from this experience? How will they become more effective in their role, or as a leader, or as a person?

 

Communication and information are different and largely opposite – yet interdependent: Information is pure. It is logic, without meaning, impersonal, and free of human intervention. Communication, however, is steeped in human intervention. Communication seeks to make meaning out of information. As Drucker noted in 1974, humans were awash in information, but lacking in ways of making sense out of that information: “…information is, above all, a principle of economy. The fewer data needed, the better the information. And an overload of information leads to information blackout. It does not enrich, but impoverishes” (Drucker, 1974, p. 395-396).


Fast forward to today, and we are in the same situation on steroids. Misinformation abounds on social media platforms, leading to political division and violence. Organizations are overwhelmed by data, struggling to find meaning in the mass of information. Data analytics has exploded as a field of study and application. Fifty years ago, Drucker commented that the information revolution of that age did not really produce information; it merely produced data (Drucker, 1974, p. 398). This is not communication. Communication involves understanding the human component: emotions, values, expectations and perceptions. Thus, communication and information are, as Drucker states, largely opposite, but yet they are interdependent, particularly today. How can we use information constructively in communications? By understanding the human component of communication.


So, do words matter? Do what we say and write make a difference in communication? Absolutely.


If communication is perception, it requires effectively conveying concepts or ideas in a way that another person can actually hear and comprehend. This may require using a variety of words to communicate; not everyone understands a particular term the same way, as words carry associations, cultural references, and other information. In our class, for example, we discussed the fact that Drucker’s use of the terms “conservative” and “liberal” can be very jarring for a modern audience, as those words today are particularly loaded politically. In Drucker’s writing, they are not; Drucker uses those terms in a historical context that is largely unfamiliar to a contemporary audience, particularly an American audience. In academia, the use of jargon is another example of where language can get in the way of perception. The term “rationality” in decision making has specific connotations that may be unclear to someone who comes from a humanities background, where “rationality” may mean something more philosophical. Particularly when we are attempting to discuss complex problems or subjects, our word choice can actually make a complicated subject more confusing.

 

If communication is expectation, we need to understand what our audience expects to hear, read, or see. What is “expected” for this particular person or group of people? Can we use language that fits with their worldview or perspective? Or do we need to signal clearly that something is out of the ordinary? Some individuals are more flexible and open to change; they are resilient in the face of adversity and have coping skills to adapt. Others are less capable in this area; they fear change and prefer routine and the safety of predictability. If you are introducing a new program, method of performance evaluation, or other change, how does your language impact the reception of that action? If someone expects change as the norm, the communication can take one form. If another person expects the absence of change as the status quo, then the communication needs to be modified, using a completely different tone and approach. This is why it is crucial for you to know your team members and assess them without passing judgment. What do they expect? How can you most effectively institute a change without having people ignore that something is different and needs to be noticed?

 

If communication makes demands, our language needs to consider the values of the recipient so that we effectively stimulate action. If we are asking someone to do something, or believe something, or comprehend a point of view, our words have to align with the worldview of the recipient. This is particularly true if we are asking people to be part of a team or organization, or to do something that benefits society. Drucker’s discussions of the social responsibility of business, for example, emphasize the fact that actions that mitigate negative impacts can be profitable for an organization. It actually can benefit a company to remedy its negative social impacts – not just because it’s “the right thing to do,” but because it is financially beneficial. This kind of thinking would aid communication involving corporate social responsibility, particularly efforts to mitigate climate change.

 

Finally, if communication and information are different and largely opposite – yet interdependent, we need to do a better job of integrating the two, particularly in today’s society that is awash in data. What information is relevant to decisions? How do we glean meaning out of big data? How do we use information as part of effective communication? Simply reporting data is not communication. Communication involves taking information and telling a story, making that information useful to the world of problem solving, decision making, and the often messy practice of management. How do we craft written articles and oral presentations to make data meaningful and useful? We need to consider all of the factors Drucker mentions earlier. How will the data be perceived? As a threat? An opportunity? How can I use language to effectively communicate the meaning of the information? How does the information fit with the expectations of the audience? Is it shocking, or expected? How do I need to convey data to motivate people to act? Information alone won’t motivate, so what words do I use, or do I use pictures or some other method to illustrate the information? In short, what is the best way to present my analysis that will reach my audience and actually make them listen, understand, and respond?


What does effective communication look like in your organization? If language is important, and not just “communication,” shouldn’t we pay attention to how we use it, particularly with the vehicles we have? With all of the media available to us, are we as careful about the words we use as we should be? Language may not be the realm of culture that it was in Drucker’s era, but words do matter, whether they are used on Twitter, email, voicemail, text, or in a meeting on Zoom or in person. In this time of rapid change and response, perhaps it benefits us to slow our response down to make sure we are communicating with each other effectively.

 

 

Sources

Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Drucker, P.F. (1969). “Information, Communication, and Understanding.” Reprinted in The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993, pp. 319-337.

Drucker, P.F. (1992). “Reflections of a Social Ecologist.” Reprinted in The Ecological Vision: Reflections on the American Condition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993, pp. 441-457.

Evans, A., Suklun, H. (2017). “Workplace diversity and intercultural communication: A phenomenological study.” Cogent Business Management, Vol. 4, Issue 1, 5 December.

Ferrazzi, K. (2013). “Managing People: How to Avoid Virtual Miscommunication.” Harvard Business Review, April 12.

Lui, L., Wu, W., McEntire, D. (2021). “Six Cs of pandemic emergency management: A case study of Taiwan’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 64, October.

Trejo, B. (2021). “Zoom Gloom is Real: How to Improve Communication and Connection Without Video.” Forbes, October 7.

Utz, S., Gaiser, F., Wolfers, L. (2022). “Guidance in the chaos: Effects of science communication by virologists during the COVID-19 crisis in in Germany and the role of parasocial phenomena.” Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 31, Issue 6, May 18.

 

 

 

The Specifics of Management of the Knowledge Worker

By Ryan Lee • 07 Nov, 2024
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.

The Wisdom and Continuing Relevance of Peter Drucker

By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. • 07 Nov, 2024
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.

Revolutions in Labor Hierarchies

By Ryan Lee • 24 Oct, 2024
A specter is haunting the world – though this time, the dynamics of labor have shifted to the point where this specter cannot resemble a communist force. If Drucker’s works have been any indication, the rise of the knowledge worker is a first in the history of human productivity. This first has, among many other things, overturned the traditional labor hierarchies that have existed since the rise of agriculture. For much of history, societal hierarchies and their subsequent conflicts have been demarcated by the fine line between ruler and ruled – master and slave, lord and serf, bourgeois and proletariat, and so on. The commonality between each of these relationships has been that authority and autonomy has been largely allocated to one side – the ruling – and that the literal toil of labor has been the leverage of the other – the ruled. The rulers instructed the ruled on where to direct their labor, while the ruled prevented their rulers from siphoning too much of their earnings. Such a delicate balance, established in the first agrarian civilizations, was often upset, as shown by history’s account of countless peasant revolts and eradicated kingdoms. In his 1966 essay “The First Technological Revolution and its Consequences”, Drucker established that currently recognizable human lifestyles trace much of their origins back to this first agrarian revolution in affairs. This includes the aforementioned labor hierarchy, which has dictated government policy even into the industrial age. Even through the various industrial revolutions, the evolution of labor only affected the organization of workers, with unions and labor groups giving mass labor a platform to negotiate less violently against their employers. The base demands of labor – better wages, better working conditions – as well as the demands of their employers – more output per head, more efficiency – still belonged to the old ruler-ruled hierarchy, despite the emergence of supposedly modern fixtures of economy like the union. The rise of the knowledge worker threatens to upend this paradigm. Drucker laid out some basic facts about the knowledge worker that are relevant to dealing with this revolution. First, the knowledge worker is far more autonomous than any other kind of worker in history. Management of labor has depended on power resting largely with authority. Autonomy of the worker significantly shrinks the need for this hierarchy. Second, the knowledge worker’s output is augmented by information technology. Drucker identified this as the computer in his time, but artificial intelligence fits this role as well. In previous times, any labor-altering advancements in technology only created more jobs through economic expansion. The Luddites’ archnemesis, the textile machines dominating Britain and the United States in the early nineteenth century, created a plethora of employment through an explosion of demand for consumer goods. The assembly line that threatened the monopoly of high-cost artisans generated jobs for countless factory workers. All these phenomena were driven by the mechanization of work – repetitive work, that is. Even the replacement of the artisan was the simplification of each step of their work into a repetitive task that any unskilled laborer could replicate. However, all these technologies simply made existing manual labor more efficient by subdividing it - an early application of management theory, but one that still required mass labor regardless. The development of the computer and AI poses a distinct form of technological automation, in tandem with the rise of the knowledge worker. For the first time, true automation has become a reality. Drucker noted that the computer, and now AI, can dictate and execute decisions that before would have required a human to do. Pairing this with the autonomy of the knowledge worker, we witness the creation of a system that foregoes the historic one-way direction of command for a more reciprocative structure where workers contribute as much feedback to their institutions as their bosses and the only defining difference in authority between either is the extended foresight required to direct the entire company forward. The United States is in a mixed position to deal with this shift in hierarchy. Historically, it has prescribed all its citizens to be equal and free, however different reality may have been. Individual liberty has been baked into the country’s persona beginning with the Founding Fathers and spanning the defining moments of American history, from the Civil War to the Frontier Thesis of 1890 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Thus, the American psyche is better adjusted to welcome the knowledge worker; the view that an American peasant never existed doesn’t exist for nothing. However, other contradictions, such as the centuries-long establishment of slavery and the historic disenfranchisement of particular groups within the United States, will contribute to friction in the transition. If not for being at direct odds with the loosening of hierarchy, these facts will at the very least create tension for the many facets of American society left behind in the deepening dependency on knowledge workers, as has recently been observed with the rise of populism on both wings of the American political spectrum. Drucker was receptive to such potential reverberations, evidenced by his concerns expressed in his work “The New Productivity Challenge” (1991). He acknowledged that however much of a role knowledge and higher service work would contribute to the American economy, the majority of the population would inevitably be outside this ecosystem, especially given the lack of concentrated education and training available to them. In that particular work he proposed that increases in productivity were crucial in maintaining the economic prosperity to generate the social stability that had prevented the oft-violent revolutions of the past. In consideration of the aforementioned hierarchical shift brought to light, the relationships between employer and employee within management theory are also important in defusing any grievances the denied populace has towards their exclusion from high-concentration work. Although service work has progressed in “employee feedback” since the mid 20th century, dissent among lower-paid service workers has risen, leading to unionization conflicts like those at Amazon and Starbucks as well as large waves of “quiet quitting” that came right after the Covid-19 pandemic. Given the prevalence of phenomena like these, management theory should heed Drucker’s warnings in advance and evaluate existing practices in employer-employee hierarchies, not only in the knowledge-worker field but in the wider service worker field as well. For if neglected, this issue shall likely boil over and erupt just as the Revolutions of 1848 manifested the specter of the labor crises sweeping Europe. As the modern maxim goes, institutions must truly adapt to having their employees “be their own boss” more than before, for the benefit of employer, employee, society, and the economy.  References Drucker, P. F. (1966) The First Technological Revolution and its Consequences. Johns Hopkins University Press. Drucker, P.F. (1991) The New Productivity Challenge. Harvard Business Review.
Show More
Share by: