Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

How to Lead Change

William A. Cohen Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

September 4, 2023

Drucker said that the best way to deal with change was NOT to manage it, but to lead it. To do this the leader of any organization has to have a system in place whereby needed changes are identified, reviewed, and adopted periodically.


Drucker maintained that any business had two important functions: innovation and marketing. The two must operate together. Moreover, he noted that any change is an innovation, if only to that organization or the user. After the innovation is created it must be accepted by those who receive, implement, and use it and therefore it must be marketed to them effectively and early in the process. Note that both of Drucker’s primary business functions, innovation and marketing, are critical in leading change.


 Successful Change Leader

The introduction of a new product is a change. Entrepreneur E. Joseph Cossman isn’t well-known today, but he was an unbelievably productive innovator who created so many winning new products that it was a miracle that he found the time and resources to pursue them all. Still, he exploited most of them successfully. He also followed a different sequence of his education. He became successful in business first, and then attended college first for an undergraduate business degree and then after he was well established for an MBA. Then he wrote a bestselling book, How I Made a Million Dollars in Mail Order which reportedly sold over 1,000,000 copies.

Most of his new products made money every time he introduced one. Moreover, he worked alone and never sought to head a large corporation. A few of his products failed, but there was no question that his success average, as well as his productivity, were both excellent and that made him an expert as an innovator and change leader in his chosen field. For example, the Cossman “Ant Farm” was a hugely successful innovation and is still being sold.


The  19th Century Toy that was an Innovation in the 20th Century

Cossman’s “ant farm” sold in the millions and is still selling. One was bought by President Kennedy for his daughter, Caroline. The idea of re-developing a 19th century toy for children based on an ant colony, with the correct kind of dirt the ants needed for their living environment and using a wooden framework of about twelve inches by twelve inches surrounded by clear panes of glass was hardly new. It had been around for a long time. Observers could watch all the activities of the ants living their lives by looking through clear windows on a thin, picture-frame box was not new either. This basic concept had been around for eighty years or more when Cossman introduced his innovation called an “ant farm” as a child’s toy and that was a major change and was new. However, that’s only where his innovation started. The old version never attempted to create a mass market as a toy for children because the window panes permitting observation of the colony’s activities were constructed from glass and were an obvious hazard as the glass could easily break and made the toy dangerous for the owner or other observers.

Although the original ant colony concept worked when used under the supervision of a teacher in a classroom, before Cossman it could not be sold as a child’s toy, and not only because of the danger of the glass breaking. Unfortunately, the glass-wood interface was not perfect, and the ants frequently escaped in the classroom, much to the dismay of both teachers and their students. Parents would have been even less enthusiastic about this characteristic if it had been a simple child’s toy.


Not only was Cossman’s “ant farm” intended as an educational toy for children at home, but it was also made a safe toy by Cossman’s changes. Cossman replaced the wooden frame and glass with clear plastic. That made it lighter, unbreakable under normal use, and safe for children and more secure regarding the ants’ ability to escape. As a bonus, it was much less expensive to manufacture. However, even the name selected for the toy, “ant farm” was unique, provocative, and promoted increased sales. His  distribution system for the ants was logical but even unique, and it was brilliant. Cossman sold every ant farm with a “livestock certificate.” It was packaged with the toy and was sent to Cossman by the buyer after purchasing the product. Cossman guaranteed live delivery of the “livestock” to populate the farm on receipt of a certificate.


So effective were these innovations, that the “ant farm” was an immediate success and more than sixty years after Cossman’s introduction, the product is still being sold today.


Drucker’s System for Leading Change was Unique Too

Drucker told us that preferably we must take the initiative to introduce change before a competitor, or a change mandated by higher authority in our own organization forced us to act. He even recommended modifying the organization so that new changes proposed were recognized by everyone in the organization was prepared for them from the start, beginning with reviewing the need for all changes on an ongoing basis.

Opportunities for change or new products may occur in many ways. These might include:


1.  Unexpected successes and failures, both our own and that of others

2.  Occurrences that have had unexpected results

3.  Emergencies Situations

4.  Changes in industry or market structures

5.  Changes in demographics

6.  Changes in meaning and perceptions of a product

7.  Actions by one or more competitors

8.  New knowledge

 

Drucker found that its not necessarily the size of the change that is most important, but the advantage created by the change. Moreover, Drucker told us what we should avoid and how we should approach innovation to build and maintain the success of our organizations with a continual stream of new ideas.


He also recommended specific ways to approach innovation that were new and that most other institutions were not following.

·     For example, a review board was established. It met frequently and periodically to review proposed new ideas and the need for them and other changes.

·     A review of the budget needed for the innovation was established at the first meeting as was a tentative strategy to be followed for the innovation’s development and its introduction.

·     Potential problems that could occur due to the introduction of the innovation along with their potential solutions were identified before the decision was made to proceed.

·     The plan as to how the change or product would be developed over time was also begun early.

 

Because products and procedures currently in use would be affected, what would be done about them were also identified. Most importantly the effect that proposed changes would have on people in the company and subordinate company organizations were also identified with solutions to the problem.


This important step was needed because a major factor that is frequently overlooked was the necessity of discontinuing existing organizations, products  or functions in our companies that had been part of successful products or procedures in the past and which would be replaced by what we propose to interduce, especially if the current product, methods, or whatever are still working and may even still be profitable.

This problem occurs because many in our organization will still be committed to the old way or old products, especially if they are still profitable and individuals involved have been affected positively in their careers by these dated innovations in the past. If we do nothing, the old product or way of operating will continue to receive priority over the new innovation and the change you want to implement, and it will be much more difficult to introduce the new innovation successfully.


Drucker told us that we must innovate with this insight. It’s not the size of the change, but the size of the advantage created by the change that is important. However, Drucker did not leave it there. He told us how we should proceed, what we should avoid, and how we should approach innovation to build and maintain the success of our organizations by employing the best way to seek, develop, and introduce new ideas into an organization. Drucker found, and others proved by the adaptation of his methods, that he was right and that what he suggested led to successful changes in any field.

 

Adapted from:

Consulting Drucker: Principles and Lessons from the World’s Leading Management Consultant by William A. Cohen (LID, 2018)

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. November 19, 2024
Interview with Karen Linkletter at the 16th Global Peter Drucker Forum 2024  Video Interview
By Ryan Lee November 7, 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.
By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. November 7, 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.
Show More
Share by: