Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

Is MLA Just a Concept?

Karen E. Linkletter

PUBLISHED:

February 1, 2022

As the Director of Research at MLARI, I think a lot about not just what MLA is, but how is works in everyday life. I frequently hear from people that MLA is too complicated or is too philosophical. Other times, people tell me that MLA is simple: it’s just about people, or social responsibility, or good leadership. In other situations, I have people giving me examples of MLA that, frankly, have nothing to do with the concept. It’s very clear to me that there is a vast disconnect between a deep understanding of MLA as an idea and how to actually put it into action. So, I have some thoughts on how to bridge this gap.


First of all, we have a lot of work to do to understand MLA and its complexity. That is really the only way we will get MLA done effectively. But, I’ve realized, in the short term, there are some ways we can begin to have conversations about how to implement MLA in organizations with respect to specific issues. I’d like to discuss the concept of freedom, and how it relates to implementing MLA in organizations. I did a podcast on this last month, so I hope you’ll listen to this for a deeper conversation about this topic.


The meaning and definition of freedom have changed depending on the time, people doing the defining, and other contextual matters. As a result, today we have multiple definitions of freedom, resulting in competing views and values that can impact not just society but also organizations. Some people see freedom solely in terms of individual rights. Freedom is my right to do what I want, when I want, and how I want. And be who I want to be. This is a valid definition, but it presents challenges for organizations. How do we build a team when everyone has his/her/their own agenda? Drucker emphasized the need for balancing individual rights with the rights of society (or the organization, or some greater good). MLA’s emphasis on the human condition is not just about letting people do what they want or be who they want to be. Yes, people need status and function, according to Drucker. But status and function require people to have responsibility and to submit to legitimate authority. We can’t have a team if everyone does what they want without any direction in terms of the organizational mission. The key is to lead people to want to be part of the team and contribute their skills to the overall vision and mission. This is particularly important when it comes to knowledge workers, who can take their skills anywhere they choose, particularly in today’s job market.


Similarly, leaders need to understand that they don’t lead by virtue of their position. There are anti-authoritarian people who bristle against any exertion of power in every organization. And power takes many forms. It’s often not overt; often it’s in the form of a great idea, plan, program, or change that didn’t involve the input of others. The plan might be brilliant; but, if presented as, “Here’s what we’re going to do, and it’s great” without buy-in from those affected, it is easily interpreted as a mandate. We’ve all seen how government mandates and public policy during this pandemic have met with incredible resistance. Think of how your great idea might be met with resistance if you present it as an obligation rather than a free choice. Yes, policies need to be implemented, and organizations are guided by external authorities,

such as labor laws and accreditation requirements. Communicating the why of a change or program, not just the what, can help people be part of the process rather than feeling that they are out of the loop.


Similarly, as Drucker said over and over, one cannot prevent change; one can only prepare for it and manage it as effectively as possible. Many have written on the challenges of managing and leading change during the pandemic (see https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/07/22/academic-administrator-shares-lessons-managing-change-during-covid-opinion, https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2021/03/26/leadership-lessons-from-a-year-of-covid-19/?sh=b3f9bdf13645, and https://www.harvardbusiness.org/leading-through-a-pandemic/, for example). One of the key principles of MLA is to balance change with continuity. Too much change without any sense of institutional stability is very unsettling for most people. Change can be very difficult for people who define freedom in terms of their individual rights; their freedom to conduct their daily business may be dramatically impacted by external circumstances that require a shift in organizational policies and procedures. For these people, leading through change may require demonstrating more empathy and compassion in their communications with team members (see, for example, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/leadership-in-a-crisis). One way to build resilience and a mindset of “we’re in this together” is for leadership to demonstrate an MLA model of freedom: status and function require people to have responsibility and buy in to the organization’s mission. Particularly in a time of crisis, it is crucial that leadership not only builds trust, but acknowledges the actual pain and negative impact that needed change may have on certain team members. In short, if everyone sees MLA as only about my own freedom (in any role), we lose sight of the important role of responsibility and the role of the organizational mission.


These are just some brief thoughts about how to relate MLA’s idea of freedom to your organization or daily life. For a more in-depth treatment, please see our MLA podcast. There’s a lot going on at MLARI, and we’re excited to share it with all of you!

The Future of Knowledge Work: What Drucker can teach us

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • November 19, 2024
Interview with Karen Linkletter at the 16th Global Peter Drucker Forum 2024  Video Interview

The Specifics of Management of the Knowledge Worker

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.

The Wisdom and Continuing Relevance of Peter Drucker

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: