Do Words Matter?

Karen Linkletter, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

November 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.

 

 

 

El Emprendedor, El Emprendimiento, y La Innovación

By Byron Ramirez Ph.D. • June 11, 2025
Cada mañana, Isabel abría su pequeño taller antes del amanecer, aunque nadie aseguraba que llegaría un cliente. No heredó fortuna, solo poseía una idea: reinventar la forma de vestir a su comunidad. Mientras otros dormían, ella soñaba despierta, hilando futuro entre telas. Así comenzó su historia como emprendedora. El emprendedor está motivado por la posibilidad de que sus productos y servicios puedan agregar valor a la sociedad. Pero también está consciente de que, para operar de manera sostenible, necesita generar ganancias. Los emprendedores tienden a reevaluar constantemente sus productos o servicios, mientras examinan el mercado en el que compiten y la forma en que producen y distribuyen sus ofertas. Ellos entienden que, para sobrevivir la intensa rivalidad y competencia que enfrentan, deben encontrar formas de innovar continuamente. La necesidad de competir de manera efectiva conduce a que los emprendedores apuesten por la innovación, ya que esta también facilita la creación de valor. Este es el proceso denominado "destrucción creativa". Joseph Schumpeter acuñó este término para describir el proceso de cambio desordenado, donde las ideas, productos, empresas e industrias enteras son desplazadas por nuevas innovaciones. Schumpeter sostuvo que la principal contribución de los emprendedores a la sociedad es abogar por el cambio y la disrupción, y al hacerlo, ayudan a avanzar a la sociedad. Schumpeter estableció conceptualmente al "emprendedor como innovador", siendo el emprendedor una figura clave en el impulso del desarrollo económico. Schumpeter argumentó que la innovación es un factor crítico del cambio económico. Indicó que el cambio económico gira en torno a la innovación, las actividades emprendedoras y el poder del mercado. Schumpeter afirmó que el poder del mercado originado en la innovación podría proporcionar mejores resultados que la competencia de precios y la ‘mano invisible’. Además, sugirió que la innovación a menudo crea monopolios temporales, permitiendo ganancias anómalas que pronto serían disputadas por imitadores y rivales. Explicó que estos monopolios temporales eran necesarios para proporcionar el incentivo requerido para que otras empresas desarrollaran nuevos productos y procesos. Por consiguiente, el emprendedor introduce cosas nuevas, procesos y perspicacia empresarial con el propósito de transformar innovaciones en bienes económicos. Y el emprendedor está dispuesto a asumir el riesgo asociado con introducir el cambio. Las actividades innovadoras de los emprendedores alimentan un proceso de ‘destrucción creativa’ al causar disturbios constantes en un sistema económico en equilibrio, creando así oportunidades para generar ingresos y beneficios. Por lo tanto, el emprendimiento interrumpe el flujo estacionario del sistema económico y de esta manera inicia y sostiene el proceso de desarrollo económico. Al ajustarse a un nuevo equilibrio, se generan otras innovaciones y más emprendedores entran al sistema económico, introduciendo nuevos productos y servicios, fomentando así el progreso. De manera similar, las empresas emprendedoras participan en la destrucción creativa y así logran captar una parte del mercado al reemplazar empresas que han fracasado en producir productos y servicios valiosos. El proceso de destrucción creativa incentiva a las empresas a desarrollar nuevos productos, servicios y procesos; de lo contrario, no sobrevivirán a largo plazo. El emprendimiento abarca la entrada al mercado de nuevas empresas, pero también respalda el desarrollo de actividades innovadoras en empresas existentes que les permiten crear valor continuo. En este sentido, la innovación puede caracterizarse como el desarrollo de un nuevo producto, servicio o proceso a medida que la empresa emprende nuevas combinaciones de los factores de producción. La innovación es un proceso complejo y dinámico que requiere compromiso, recursos e inversión. Muchas veces, las empresas modifican su modelo de negocio existente, reorganizando la forma en que desarrollan un producto o la manera en que entregan nuevas funcionalidades o servicios a sus clientes. Las modificaciones a un proceso organizacional existente, a un modelo de negocio existente, o incluso a un método de prestación de servicios, son todos ejemplos de cómo se aprovecha la innovación para buscar una mayor efectividad. La innovación puede caracterizarse como el desarrollo de un nuevo proceso o producto (o servicio) que satisface nuevos requerimientos y/o necesidades del mercado existentes. Drucker nos dice: “La innovación debe centrarse en una necesidad específica que satisface, en un resultado final específico que produce.” (Drucker, 1985). La innovación permite que productos, procesos, servicios, tecnologías e ideas más eficaces estén disponibles para los mercados y la sociedad. Como resultado, la innovación es utilizada por la empresa como un medio para satisfacer las necesidades de los consumidores; como una herramienta para competir con otras empresas en un mercado existente; y como un instrumento para ingresar a un nuevo mercado. Por lo tanto, la innovación incrementa conceptualmente la probabilidad de que la empresa logre eficiencia económica a corto plazo, y puede permitirle establecer una posición más competitiva a largo plazo. No obstante, la empresa se enfrenta a limitaciones internas (por ejemplo, el costo de insumos) y limitaciones externas (por ejemplo, la competencia en el mercado) que hacen que sea difícil subsistir. Además, los rendimientos marginales decrecientes influyen en la capacidad de producción de la empresa. La innovación puede considerarse esencial para el éxito de las empresas y para la supervivencia económica a largo plazo. Según algunos académicos, la innovación puede ayudar a mejorar la supervivencia a largo plazo de una empresa, ya que puede mejorar su oferta de línea de productos/servicios al tiempo que le permite establecer una ventaja competitiva sobre otras empresas (Antonelli, 2003; Lundvall, 2007; Porter, 1990; Schumpeter, 1936; Teece y Pisano, 1994). Vale la pena señalar que la empresa que elige innovar lo hace basándose principalmente en la información que tiene sobre las preferencias, deseos y necesidades de los consumidores en su mercado. En otras palabras, la empresa innova porque reconoce la oportunidad y el valor de satisfacer las necesidades y deseos de los consumidores a corto plazo y ve la inversión en innovación como un medio para también posicionarse eficazmente a largo plazo. Drucker nos recuerda: “La innovación sistemática y con propósito comienza con el análisis de las oportunidades” (Drucker, 1985). Y dado que la empresa enfrenta competencia, la innovación se convierte en una vía a través de la cual la empresa puede diferenciar sus productos o servicios. La innovación es la materialización exitosa de una idea útil, donde la idea es comercializada. La innovación también permite a la empresa reconfigurar sus recursos de manera más eficiente, y por lo tanto le permite aumentar su productividad, con la implicación de que esto puede ayudar a aumentar sus ganancias. La innovación ha ayudado a construir empresas y a hacer crecer y desarrollar industrias. Por ejemplo, hace apenas dos décadas, las empresas tenían dificultades para gestionar la gran cantidad de información y datos relacionados con sus interacciones continuas con los clientes. Desde 1999, Salesforce ha revolucionado la forma en que las organizaciones hacen seguimiento de las interacciones con los clientes y gestionan sus datos de ventas. Desde su fundación, Salesforce ha desarrollado múltiples versiones de sus productos, dando lugar a un sofisticado software empresarial basado en la nube que respalda la gestión de relaciones con los clientes (CRM). Las soluciones innovadoras de Salesforce incluyen la automatización de fuerza de ventas, servicio y soporte al cliente, automatización de marketing y comercio digital. Salesforce ha permitido a grandes organizaciones automatizar sus procesos de ventas y marketing y volverse cada vez más eficientes, al tiempo que se convierten en gestores eficaces de los datos e información de los clientes. La innovación no es un proceso lineal. Por el contrario, es un proceso altamente iterativo de reconsiderar muchos factores internos técnicos y operativos, y factores externos, con una interpretación en constante flujo de cómo la empresa podría continuar desarrollando y ofreciendo productos y servicios. La empresa en la que se fomenta la innovación debe apoyar las diversas iteraciones, interacciones y transacciones necesarias para respaldar los esfuerzos de innovación. El emprendedor, que no le teme a la incertidumbre ni al riesgo, es capaz de gestionar este proceso dinámico.  La innovación que aborda una necesidad o deseo del mercado aporta valor a la sociedad. Sin embargo, la innovación requiere que las empresas analicen sistemáticamente las oportunidades que se presentan. Por lo tanto, el emprendedor y la empresa emprendedora deben desarrollar la capacidad de observar y percibir las necesidades cambiantes de las personas. El emprendedor debe entonces centrarse en ofrecer una solución que satisfaga un conjunto específico de necesidades o deseos. Esto implica que la innovación debe ser manejada con propósito. Y también requiere que el emprendedor no solo sea disciplinado, sino que esté dispuesto a invertir en la adquisición de conocimiento que pueda aplicarse productivamente. Tanto el emprendedor como la empresa emprendedora deben reevaluar continuamente sus productos y servicios, analizar el mercado en el que compiten y reconsiderar la forma en que producen y distribuyen sus productos y servicios. Al adoptar la innovación, abogarán por el cambio y la disrupción, y ayudarán a avanzar a la sociedad. Referencias Antonelli, C. (2003). The economics of innovation, new technologies and structural change: studies in global competition series. New York, NY: Routledge. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper Business. Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc. Schumpeter, J.A. (1936). The Theory of Economic Development, Second Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University press. Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and corporate change, 3(3), 537-556.

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part I

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • May 13, 2025
In today’s political environment, particularly in the United States, there is much discussion about the future of democracy. Globally, traditional democratic forms of government are being called into question. Is democracy no longer effective in its ability to represent “the people”? Have democratic governments been hijacked by elite, moneyed interests? Are our institutions no longer effective and in need of some kind of reset or reinvention? The increasing appeal of authoritarian regimes, driven by populist anger, has been the subject of the work of many political scientists and observers (Silver and Fetterolf, 2024, Praet, 2024, Rhodes, 2022). Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) sought to understand the essence of democracy. His motivations and observations can perhaps be instructive to us today as we wrestle with the nature of democracy in the modern era. Alexis de Tocqueville was a member of the French aristocracy in the era immediately following the French Revolution. The revolution, which began in 1789, featured the rejection of the monarchy through violent spectacle, including public beheadings via the newly developed guillotine. Alexis’s father was part of the French government and was briefly imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. Nevertheless, he was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause. In fact, many members of the aristocracy in de Tocqueville’s France understood the motivations behind the revolution and sought to ensure that subsequent governments addressed the extreme economic disparities that were exposed by the violent events of the Reign of Terror. Alexis was educated in the aristocratic tradition, studying political philosophy and theory, history, and law. He was well-versed in the Enlightenment philosophy that influenced the framers of the American Constitution, particularly Montesquieu. Montesquieu argued for separation of powers in governance, which derived from his belief in the human capacity not only for greatness, but also for corruption. This tension between virtue and vice, which Montesquieu saw as a universal condition of humankind throughout time, required guardrails to slow down or inhibit abuse of power. Following the establishment of the French Consulate in 1799, Napoleon rose to lead the French Empire in 1804. After his defeat in the Battle of Waterloo, France restored the monarchy to Charles X. However, this was a constitutional monarchy rather than one based on the rights of heredity. In 1830, France overthrew King Charles X of the House of Bourbon, growing critical of his broken promises for economic relief from taxation to pay off the debt of the Napoleonic Wars. Charles was replaced by his cousin, Louis Philippe, of the House of Orleans. Louis Philippe sought to reform the monarchy, recognizing freedoms such as voting rights. Referred to as the “Citizen King”, he would be one of the last kings to represent France. In essence, France was beginning to understand the inevitable: the past world of a hereditary monarch claiming absolute authority was over, and the constitutional monarchy seemingly could not deliver on the promises of egalitarianism made in 1789. But what would the new form of governance look like? This was not clear. Even though the country had a reformist government, constitutional monarchy still retained elite status/class distinctions to maintain social order.  Alexis de Tocqueville was 25 when Louis Philippe was installed as the Citizen King in the July Revolution of 1830. Believing that democracy would inevitably come to France, de Tocqueville wanted to study that form of government. What did it look like? How could it be a stable form of government? Because the United States of America was the earliest experiment in democracy, de Tocqueville petitioned the king to travel to America to study that country. In particular, de Tocqueville convinced the king to let him study the American penitentiary movement. One of the areas of reform pursued in France was prison reform (prisons in France were notoriously horrible). At the time, America was in the middle of its own reform movement, including the penitentiary system of prison reform. The concept of a penitentiary was brand new. The idea behind it was that, instead of rotting in prison forever, you would be reformed and released back into society if you were truly sorry, or penitent for, your crimes. De Tocqueville visited America in 1831-1832. In addition to prison reform, he witnessed many remarkable developments in American democracy. It was President Andrew Jackson’s first term, which involved substantial political upheaval in America. Jackson was the first President elected “of the people.” He was not a Virginian or New England “blue blood,” like all the presidents before him had been. Jackson was from the frontier, and had built his name on a military career, most notably in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson’s election coincided with the expansion of suffrage to most white males regardless of their property ownership. Jackson was understandably a controversial President; his election gave birth to the Whig party as a political alternative. His fight against the Bank of the U.S. placed him at odds with a rapidly developing commercial middle class. During de Tocqueville’s visit, Americans were participating in a growing reform culture. Abolition, or anti-slavery, was building steam in the nation. William Lloyd Garrison published his first issue of The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper that de Tocqueville read. There were religious revivals, known as the Second Great Awakening, and urban reform movements targeting prostitution, temperance, and of course, prison reform, the purported reason for de Tocqueville’s visit. The discovery of gold on Cherokee land in Georgia in 1828 snowballed into the event eventually known as the Trail of Tears, the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands. Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act made such events legal, and de Tocqueville personally witnessed the removal of the Chocktaw tribe. On a lighter note, this was also a time of incredible technological development. Railroad development and land speculation was beginning, McCormick had just patented his reaper, and de Tocqueville saw the newly opened Erie Canal. While de Tocqueville studied the nature of America’s young democracy nearly 200 years ago, we can leverage his observations with our own experience of facing a changing world where the nature of democracy is being questioned globally. The move towards increasing authoritarianism and populist movements calls into question whether democracy is government by the people or by the elite. Can de Tocqueville’s observations help us assess how we might keep democracies intact or make them more effective? In our next installment, I’ll look at de Tocqueville’s specific observations regarding democracy – particularly those related to the nature of equality. Sources Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (1949). The spirit of the laws. New York: Hafner Pub. Co. Praet, J. (2024). Bringing authoritarianism into the limelight: the implications for populist radical right ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 1-23. Rhodes, B. (2022). After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We’ve Made. Random House. Silver, L. and Fetterolf, J. (2024). Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government? Pew Research Center, February 28. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/ Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.

On Leadership, Legitimate Power, and Influence

By Byron Ramirez, Ph.D. and Bo Yang, Ph.D. • April 23, 2025
When we describe leaders, we often cite the importance of their ability to influence others. For decades scholars have focused their work on studying and describing how this capacity to influence works and why it tends to elicit a positive response from people, who are inspired to follow the leader’s vision. We have read about that mystifying ability to persuade others and guide them towards a common purpose. However, when analyzing the leader there is another aspect we ought to also consider - where does their power originate from, and is this power considered legitimate? What these questions intend to imply is that when we analyze the interactions of leaders and their followers, we should contemplate how their relationship is built, and moreover, how the power of the leader is used to shape those relationships. Let us first discuss what power is and why it is important. Power in its general sense is the capacity to influence, lead, dominate, or impact the actions of others. The German sociologist, Max Weber referred to power as the capacity to create a desired outcome within a social relationship. As such, power enables the leader to influence and lead the actions of people. Legitimate power is often referred to as power that the person derives from formal position or office held in the organization's hierarchy of authority. And it is this notion of authority that helps legitimatize power in the eyes of the follower. For instance, a manager has legitimate power over their subordinates, allowing them to assign tasks. Teachers possess legitimate power in the classroom, enabling them to assign grades and set learning objectives. We can then surmise that legitimate power is based on the authority granted by a position or title. And individuals will comply with requests or decisions made by the person with authority because they recognize the authority of the person holding the position. However, unlike authority, which implies legitimacy, power can be exercised illegitimately. As history shows us, there are plenty of examples where power did not originate simply from a place of authority and legitimacy, and instead flowed from coercion. Joseph Stalin and his Great Terror campaign certainly comes to mind. And although Stalin did have a position of “authority”, much of his power and influence were coercive and deceptive in nature. In fact, Stalin had used his political positions throughout his life to “remove” opponents while bolstering his image in the pursuit of greater personal power. According to biographer Robert Service (2005), Stalin took pleasure in degrading and humiliating people and kept even close associates in a state of "unrelieved fear”. Of course, there are other instances in which coercive power is used to elicit compliance. A more common example of coercive power is a manager who uses threats of demotion or termination to get employees to comply. And so, when we consider the influence a leader (manager) has, we ought to consider the very nature and source of their power. Do people follow the leader because they are truly inspired by the leader’s vision? Or do they follow because they have no other choice? Managers who threaten the job security of others to ensure compliance, leaders who exploit their positions for personal gain, or individuals who rise through favoritism rather than merit – are manifestations of illegitimate power. Regardless of context, illegitimate power tends to erode morale, limit creativity, and foster toxic environments where people operate out of fear rather than purpose. Illegitimate power wields influence without moral justification, ethical values, or the consent of those affected. And because this form of power often derives from manipulation, coercion, intimidation, or exploitation rather than genuine respect for people, it undermines trust, breeds fear, and corrodes the ethical foundations of organizations and communities. Coercive leaders who use threats, punishment, or psychological pressure to force compliance, may certainly achieve short-term results, but at a significant long-term cost. Coercion strips individuals of their autonomy and creates environments of resentment and disengagement. People may comply outwardly, but internally they may withdraw, resist, or leave. Furthermore, coercive leadership discourages open dialogue and constructive feedback, which are essential for innovation, growth, and continuous improvement. When fear becomes the primary motivator, organizations and societies become stagnant, rigid, and vulnerable to collapse. And this brings us to an important question – what does legitimate power look like? On this issue, Peter Drucker offers unique insights. In his first book, The End of Economic Man (1939), Drucker discussed the issue of legitimate power (although he did not use the term legitimate power, but rather the justification of authority). Drucker believed that the power of rulers must possess legitimacy, a tradition that has continued in Western civilization since Plato and Aristotle. In Drucker’s view, legitimate power involves a functional relationship between power, social beliefs, and social realities: does power commit to social beliefs? At the same time, can it effectively organize social reality based on that commitment to create order? In his books, Concept of the Corporation (1946) and The New Society (1950), Drucker began to use both terms legitimate power and leadership simultaneously. Drucker would go on to argue that a government that commits to the well-being of its people can be said to have legitimate power. Over time, Drucker shifted his analysis of legitimate power from the political realm to social organizations. According to Drucker, if the management of a social organization (such as a company) claims that its principal purpose is to benefit employees, this particular focus would constitute an abuse of power. Instead, Drucker argued that the primary mission of an economic organization is to always achieve economic performance, thereby contributing to society – and this is in fact, the source of the legitimacy of corporate management's power. Of course, a company is also a community. For employees, management undoubtedly holds power and must exercise it. However, the legitimacy of management’s power does not come from the commitment to benefit employees, but rather from two functions: 1. Through institutional design and innovation, shaping effective community communication, thereby enabling middle-level and lower-level employees to gain an overall vision of the organization. This allows employees to have a managerial attitude. 2. By setting clear and reasonable performance standards, prompting employees to take responsibility and achieve success through effective work. If management can perform these functions within the organization, then it is considered to exercise legitimate power. In Drucker's early works, exercising legitimate power was almost synonymous with leadership. Drucker was not enthusiastic about discussing the personal style or charm of leaders, and he was even less inclined to associate leadership with a mystifying ability to persuade others, especially if such persuasion appealed to propaganda, indoctrination, or mental manipulation. For Drucker, discussing leadership primarily meant enabling power to function effectively. Therefore, leadership is not a matter of individual leaders' techniques and styles, but rather a matter of the responsibility and function of power itself. We can surmise from these functions that legitimate power aligns with the goals, beliefs, and aspirations of the people being led. Leaders who wield this kind of power do not need to resort to threats or manipulation. Instead, they inspire, guide, and collaborate. Their authority is accepted because it is seen as fair, earned, and beneficial to the collective. It is vital to foster leaders who operate from legitimate power—power that is granted through trust, expertise, shared values, and recognized authority. Legitimate power is grounded in the formal authority granted to a manager through their role within an organization, but its true strength comes from how that authority is exercised. Unlike coercive power, legitimate power is perceived as rightful and appropriate because it is based on clear expectations, mutual respect, and established structures. When managers consistently act with fairness, integrity, and transparency, their authority is more likely to be accepted and trusted by their teams. This creates a healthy power dynamic where employees feel secure in leadership decisions, understand their roles, and are motivated to contribute toward shared goals. Managers can build legitimate power by aligning their actions with the organization's values and demonstrating competence, consistency, and accountability. For instance, making decisions that reflect the organization’s mission and treating all team members equitably strengthens a manager’s credibility. Communication is also key—leaders who listen actively, provide clear direction, and explain the rationale behind their decisions foster trust and buy-in. Investing in personal growth, staying informed, and modeling a strong work ethic all reinforce the perception that a manager has earned their position and is acting in the best interest of the team and the organization. When managers lead through legitimate power, the benefits to the organization are substantial. Teams are more engaged, morale improves, and collaboration increases because people trust the leadership and feel aligned with the organization’s purpose. This creates a positive feedback loop where employees are more likely to take initiative, innovate, and remain committed, reducing turnover and boosting overall performance. In essence, legitimate power forms the foundation of a sustainable leadership culture—one that empowers individuals, strengthens organizational integrity, and drives long-term success. Developing leaders who influence through legitimate power requires a shift in how we define and nurture leadership. It involves prioritizing emotional intelligence, ethical reasoning, transparency, and empathy. Such leaders model integrity and authenticity, aligning their decisions with shared values and long-term visions. They create environments where people feel valued, heard, and empowered. In turn, this fosters loyalty, engagement, and a strong sense of purpose. To build healthier workplaces and more just societies, we must champion leaders who embody legitimate power: those who influence not by fear, but by vision, credibility, and alignment with shared values. This approach not only promotes ethical leadership but also cultivates trust, innovation, and collective well-being. References Drucker, P. F. (1946). Concept of the corporation. New York: John Day Company Drucker, P. F. (1939). The end of economic man: A study of the new totalitarianism. New York: John Day Company Drucker, P. F. (1950). The new society: The anatomy of the industrial order. New York: Harper Service, R. (2005). Stalin: a biography. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Weber, M. (1965). Politics as a vocation. Fortress Press.
Show More