Leadership and Uvalde A Case Study

Michael Cortrite PhD

PUBLISHED:

September 23, 2022


 Much analysis has been done of the mass shooting on 5/24/22 at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. I will examine the incident from a leadership perspective. My experiences that might make my opinions worthwhile are:

  • Retired police officer, police supervisor and manager of 32 years 
  • Police trainer for the last 30 years 
  • UCLA graduate with a doctor of education in leadership degree 
  • Graduate school professor of leadership for the last thirteen years 
  • Peter F. Drucker researcher at the Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute (MLARI) at the California Institute of Advanced Management (CIAM), for the last 5 years 

 

There are four areas that would help explain the Uvalde law enforcement response to this incident. They are: 

  1. Basic police academy training 
  2. Fear 
  3. Bystander Effect, particularly Diffusion of Responsibility, and 
  4. Leadership and Autonomy 

I will weigh in on each of these, and I will save what I feel is the most important, a lack of autonomy, for last. 


 

BASIC POLICE ACADEMY TRAINING 

I graduated from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Academy in 1970 and I still train academy recruits at the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance, where most police academies in California send their recruits for a day-long workshop on tolerance. The amount of knowledge the academy imparted on us recruits was impressive. However, my most vivid memory of the academy is that there was a strong focus on officer safety. We were told that out first priority was to go home to our families every night. A lot of the curriculum centered on police officer killings, including photographs of dead police officers. The purpose of this was obviously to reduce the number of police officers killed by scaring us into being more cautious. As far as I can tell from interacting with new recruits, this focus on officer safety is still in effect. It probably saves police officer lives, but, at least in my case, it made me less likely to put myself in danger. I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think recruits should be told that there may be times when officer safety comes in second to saving innocent victims’ lives. 

 

 On August 15, 2022, I spoke with a current police academy instructor from a large police academy. I asked if there was still a large focus on officer safety. The answer I got was “yes and no; the phrase, …first priority was to go home every night… is still used. However the academy also teaches active shooter protocols; that is, …at the scene of a mass shooting officers will advance into the site of any ongoing shooting and act to neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible.” The instructor I spoke to added that they know a police sergeant who does in-service training (training of veteran officers) who tells officers, “If your first priority is to go home at night, look for another job.” 

 

FEAR 

Police officers are human. They react to fear pretty much the same way everybody else does. What would you feel and what would you do if you were asked to confront someone who is armed with one of the deadliest weapons ever devised (commonly known as the AR15) and who has just killed numerous innocent people? Needless to say, the average person would quickly decline for fear of being killed. Police officers have very similar feelings. But police officers have a lot things going for them that should help mitigate their fear compared to the average citizen. Police officers usually have those same AR15-type weapons, training, almost unlimited backup, and hopefully a lot of experience. In case you were wondering, the bullet proof vest will not stop a bullet fired from an AR15-type rifle. 

Personally, I would think back to those lessons at the police academy that I have a responsibility to go home to my family after work. Theoretically, police officers don’t have the luxury of declining to go in after this crazed killer.  I’ll explain this later. 

 

BYSTANDER EFFECT/DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY 

And now a discussion of a very close cousin of fear— the bystander effect. 

The bystander effect refers to the well-documented fact that at any incident, event or scene where bad things are happening, the huge majority of people choose to be bystanders. They simply watch instead of doing something to help the people being victimized. In 1964 a young woman named Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York was murdered. She was coming home to her apartment and was stabbed numerous times with a knife. Even though the murder took place over several minutes just outside her apartment in view of her neighbors, no one did anything to try to stop the attack. In fact, it was later determined that 37 of her neighbors saw the attack and none of them even called the police. 

 

The Genovese case drew international attention and has been studied by social scientists in hundreds of experiments. A particularly powerful part of the bystander effect is diffusion of responsibility (Rentschler 2016), which has been defined as: 


When a person notices a situation and defines it as requiring 

assistance, he or she must then decide if the responsibility to help 

 falls on his or her shoulders… Diffusion of responsibility refers to 

 the fact that as the number of bystanders increases, the personal 

responsibility that an individual bystander feels decreases. As a 

consequence, so does his or her tendency to help  (Brittanica). 


In other words, “Why should I place myself in danger by doing something when some of these other people will probably do something.” Very shortly after the shooting at Robb Elementary School started there were dozens of police officers at the scene, including the Uvalde School District Chief of Police, Peter Arredondo. It looked like most of them were waiting and wishing someone would do something (Sanderson 2020). Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing” (Einstein). And bystanders who are in positions of power (such as Chief Arredondo) are especially dangerous because other people look to them as models. Their lack of action encourages and gives permission to others to be bystanders. 

 

How many people at Robb Elementary looked at Arredondo and were emboldened to be bystanders? I would like to add another phrase to the end of Einstein’s quote; that is, “especially if they are a person in a position of power” (I use “person in a position of power” because according to Dr. Kotter of Harvard Business School, just because someone has a title doesn’t make them a leader. They have to earn the title of leader by their actions) (Kotter 2001). A leader and a bystander are two diametrically opposed positions. A leader is the opposite of a bystander (Cory and Cory 2021, Katz 2016). A leader, by definition, takes action. A bystander, by definition, stands by and watches. In the words of Peter Drucker, writing on the definition of leadership, “Wishing won’t make it so; doing will” (Drucker 1954, p.160). 

 

It’s important to note that in April 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado a mass shooting occurred (15 people were killed). At that time police officers who arrived at the scene waited for the Special Weapons and Tactics team (SWAT) to assemble and come to the scene to deal with the shooters. In 1999 this was the police culture; that is, confronting mass shooters was the domain of specially trained SWAT teams. Since Columbine, police departments have acknowledged that not taking immediate action to neutralize the shooter at a mass shooting increases the likelihood that more people will die. Therefore, policies were universally enacted by police departments to change this culture/tactic; that is, the first officers at the scene of a mass shooting will advance into the site of any ongoing shooting and act to neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible (YOYO Response 2020). This is commonly called the Immediate Action Rapid Deployment (IARD) tactic (IARD 2022). 

 

This change in culture/tactics was huge. It made being a police officer even more dangerous. And keep in mind that, even a small cultural change is difficult and time consuming (Schein 2016). So, this recent (22 years ago) major change in police culture coupled with the bystander effect made it easier for police officers to consciously or sub-consciously succumb to their fears and do what we saw the first officers on the scene at Robb Elementary School do—basically nothing. I suspect that most of these officers looked around and thought something like, “With all these officers here, I’m sure someone is going to do something…soon.” 

 

LEADERSHIP AND AUTONOMY 

This brings us to leadership and autonomy which, I think, is the most important factor that would lead to better law enforcement responses to mass shootings. One of the earliest uses of autonomy in leadership is from Peter Drucker in his 1954 book, The Practice of Management. Drucker described a management strategy he named Management by Objectives (MBO). This strategy was radical for its time in that it suggested, among other things, that management should share responsibility with the employee for deciding how the employee should do their job. In other words, giving the employee autonomy. Today MBO is widely used in various forms (Staunstrub 2022). According to Exchange Leadership, MBO was being used by 79% of Fortune 1000 companies in 2008 (Curtin 2022, Sung et. al., 2022) and others have found that management by objectives positively affects employee engagement and meaningfulness. 

 

Perhaps the best description of leaders using autonomy to motivate employees is from Daniel Pink in his New York Times bestselling book, Drive (Pink 2009). Pink makes the case that one of the most effective ways to motivate people is by giving them as much autonomy as possible. People who get to make their own decisions as to how they are going to do their jobs, will do a much better job. They will be more engaged and prouder of their accomplishment.  Lao Tzu said, “Of the best of leaders, when the task is done, the people say, ‘We did it ourselves” (Heider 1997). Conversely, if people are told what to do and how to do it, they will probably comply, but they will not be committed and will only do the minimum required. 

 

 

A new study (Maran et al. 2022) concurs with Pink on the effect of autonomy on job engagement. They posit that employees, given a high degree of autonomy, are more engaged, higher performers, and better decision makers. When employees are given autonomy, once vision is set, they develop a clearer understand of their goals, and align their decisions with the organization’s vision and goals. And just getting to practice making decisions makes them better decision makers: “This granting autonomy acts as a vitamin for goal achievement” (p. 147). 

 

The Texas House of Representatives Investigative Report on the Robb Elementary Shooting report was published on July 17, 2022 (Texas House of Representatives Investigative Report on the Robb Elementary Shooting 2022). The report cites numerous failures and mistakes by numerous people. This paper will point out only the failures of leadership cited in the report. The report noted several high-ranking law enforcement personnel who exhibited a shocking lack of leadership.  It reported that among the first law enforcement people to arrive at Robb Elementary were Uvalde School District Chief of Police, Peter Arredondo; Uvalde Police Department Acting Chief of Police, Lt. Mariano Pargas; and Uvalde Police Department SWAT Commander, Staff Sgt. Canales. Lt. Pargas told the committee that he and Chief Arredondo never communicated with each other. Staff Sgt. Canales was one of three officers seen in surveillance video approaching the door to classroom 112, where the shooter was. When the shooter shot through the wall the three officers ran away. This was at 11:37 AM. It was 12:50 PM when a U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Team (BORTAC) made entry and confronted the shooter. As Staff Sgt. Canales was exiting the building he was heard to say, “we got to get in there” (p.58). He then helped other officers evacuating children from other classrooms. Cable News Network (CNN) aired a special on August 7, 2022, What Really Happened in Uvalde (CNN 2022). It showed Texas Governor Gregory Abbott at a news conference 24 hours after the shooting saying the law enforcement officers at Uvalde saved lives by running towards the gunfire. There was also video of Staff Sergeant Canales and two other officers running away from classroom 112 when the shooter shot through the wall. 

 

The report states that “The general consensus of witnesses interviewed by the Committee was that officers on the scene assumed that Chief Arredondo was in charge or that they could not tell that anyone was in charge of a scene described by several witnesses as chaos and a ‘cluster’.” 

 

INTERVIEW WITH CHIEF JACQUELINE SEABROOKS 

On 7/30/22 I interviewed retired police chief, Jacqueline Seabrooks. The police department she was chief of at the time had a mass shooting in 2013 (CNN 2013), that by all accounts, even though 5 people died, was a hugely successful law enforcement response. This shooting started at a residential house in the city and ended at the local community college. During her 37-year career Seabrooks was police chief of two different medium size Southern California police departments. She retired from the department where the mass shooting occurred and was chief of the other department for five years. Due to a disastrous law enforcement response to some civil unrest and mass looting in May 2020 (Los Angeles Magazine 2020) she was asked to return to that department where the mass shooting occurred as interim chief for a year.   

 

The questions I asked Seabrooks about her experiences of being the Chief of Police and having the ultimate responsibility for a successful law enforcement response to a mass shooting were: (1) What about your and your staff’s leadership helped make the response to this incident so successful? and (2) What did you learn about leadership from your involvement in this incident? 

 

 Seabrooks mentioned the nationally used Incident Command System (ICS) (ICS 2022) that was immediately put into place when the incident started. This system facilitated several organizations to seamlessly work together under a single command structure. Seabrooks cited an interaction she had with a captain from her department who, in accordance with the ICS system, had declared himself the Incident Commander. (She said that every member of her department is regularly and thoroughly trained in ICS.) She arrived at the incident command post and the captain asked her if she was assuming command. After getting a quick briefing on the situation, she replied, “Certainly not, carry on.” In other words, Seabrooks reinforced in this person that he had the autonomy to continue making decisions about the incident. She was telling him that she trusted him and his competence to do what was needed to successfully carry out their mission. She told me that the people carrying out the mission did not need her sticking her nose into everything. She said that leadership is giving her people what they need, staying out of their way, and being available if they have any questions. Seabrooks said that as a leader she believes that hiring the right people and then trusting them to effectively do their jobs makes for engaged and committed employees at all levels, who are not afraid to lead and make decisions. She said that it appeared that members of law enforcement in Uvalde were not talked about as leaders or told that everyone in an organization can and should be a leader. 

 

 For many years Seabrooks had been inviting the (much smaller) college police department to join the city police department in whatever training they were doing. This made for good relationships and cooperation between the two police departments. So, when it came down to having two city police officers and one college police officer being in the right place at the right time to engage the shooter, they quickly formed a team and neutralized the shooter, thereby saving uncountable lives. They didn’t need to ask for permission; they just did their job. Seabrooks said, “What they did was the opposite of just following orders.” Seabrooks also talked about complacency, the “It can’t happen here” attitude, and the idea that you don’t need a title to be a leader. She has always tried to send a message to employees that, in police work, mental preparedness is just as important as physical preparedness. And every employee should be mentally prepared to take charge of a scene at any time. As a police administrator she has had regular dialogues with subordinates about the fact that police officers are human and there are officers who might freeze up or not commit to putting their lives in jeopardy to save innocent citizens’ lives. These dialogues have the effect of reminding officers of their responsibilities, confronting themselves about these responsibilities, and keeping complacency in check. 

Seabrooks added that a very important part of leadership is also, to keep an eye on the police officers for the foreseeable future, who shot the suspect for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Garrett 2006). 



 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

Historically, law enforcement agencies are conservative and hesitant to move away from command-and-control leadership and towards giving employees more autonomy. However, my experience is that they are slowly becoming more open to the more progressive styles of leadership. A leadership program that was started by the California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training in 1989, the Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership Institute (SBSLI) is very progressive and has trained several thousand front line supervisors from every law enforcement agency in California. 

 

Maybe the Uvalde event is the impetus for law enforcement people in positions of power to start embracing empowerment; hiring and promoting the right people, giving guidance, goals, and vision, and encouraging officers to make as many decisions as possible. 

 

The first officers on the scene at Uvalde didn’t seem to think of themselves as leaders. If they did, they would have made the decision, without being told, to do something. In watching video on the incident, I would call many of these officers unengaged. The reality is that everyone, no matter their title or position, influences other people and is therefore a leader (Sanborn 2006). Everyone should be encouraged to practice being better leaders by honing and practicing their leadership skills. 

For current people in positions of power in law enforcement who are concerned about losing power or feeling unneeded, or “having the inmates run the asylum” Matthew Barzun, former ambassador to the United Kingdom and Sweden, has some advice. He makes a very convincing case that by giving employees more autonomy/power, you are saying to them, “I care for you, trust you, and want you to succeed.” This helps in building a trusting, caring relationship between employee and supervisor and therefore will result in more influence (personal power) and engagement for both employee and supervisor (Barzun 2021). 

 

Peter Arredondo, Uvalde School District Police Chief, was a bystander at the school. The Uvalde shooting might have turned out differently if Arredondo had realized that he was one of those law enforcement officers who would not commit to risking his life to save innocent people, so he should have just stayed away. The report, of course, points out that since the 1999 Columbine tragedy all police officers must be willing to risk their lives without hesitation. And at the Uvalde shooting police officers failed to adhere to their active shooter training. It is unknown if Uvalde police superiors regularly reinforced this training. The Uvalde School District Chief of Police, who was inside the school failed to assume command or to assign anyone else to take command. And, only after 77 minutes did anyone exercise leadership; at that time members of the U.S. Border Patrol Tactical Team entered the classroom where the shooter was. The report seems to place blame for the lack of leadership on all Uvalde law enforcement personnel. “The entirety of law enforcement and its training, preparation, and response shares systemic responsibility for the many missed opportunities on that tragic day” (p.7). 


RECOMMENDATIONS 

  • The bystander effect is real and needs to be a subject of regular training for all law enforcement personnel. 
  • Hiring and promotional testing should be about finding leaders, not charismatic people. Demagogues are charismatic. Leaders act with integrity. (Drucker 1964 p.159). The hiring and promotional processes should also take into account whether or not the potential candidates are sure that they can prioritize the lives of innocent citizens over their safety and the safety of their subordinates. 
  • Officer safety is not what it used to be. Police academies need to stress to recruits that starting in 1999 there was a major change in policing policy. Police officers now need to manage their fear and prioritize the lives of innocent citizens over their own safety. 
  • All members of law enforcement should take note that Uvalde law enforcement and the Uvalde School District was a victim of complacency (“It can’t happen here.”) Regular communication and dialogue are the best way to ensure that complacency will not take hold of your organization. 
  • It seems that when an organization is being examined or evaluated, the cliché, “poor communications” always seems to come up. The Uvalde shooting was clearly a case of disastrous communications or lack of communicating altogether, especially from people in positions of power. Every organization can use more practice/training in improving communication. 

 

References 


Anonymous, The YOYO Response, Police Vol.44 Iss.8 Aug. 2020 

 

Barzun, Matthew, The Power of Giving Power Away: How the Best Leaders Learn to Let Go. 

Penguin Random House, New York 2021 

 

Britannica, Diffusion of Responsibility 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/bystander-effect/Diffusion-of-responsibility 

 

Curtin, Joseph, Using Management by Objectives To Improve Performance,  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255645533_Values- 

Exchange_LeadershipR_Using_Management_by_Objectives_Performance_Appraisals_t 

o_Improve_Performance 

 

Cory, David and Cory, Jill. Emotional Intelligence and the Bystander Effect: Being a Leader is the 

 Opposite of Being a Bystander. Webinar August 26, 2021 Emotional Intelligence  

Training Company. https://www.emotionalintelligence.ca/2021/08/emotional- 

intelligence-and-the-bystander-effect/ 

 

CNN, Cable News Network 2013  

 https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/09/justice/california-college-gunman 

 

CNN, Cable News Network 2022 

https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2022/08/04/anderson-cooper-360-special-report-what-really-happened-in-uvalde/  

 

 

Drucker, Peter F., The Practice of Management. Harper & Row. New York 1954 

 

Einstein, Albert. https://philosiblog.com/2011/11/29/the-world-is-a-dangerous-place-to-live- 

not-because-of-the-people-who-are-evil-but-because-of-the-people-who-dont-do- 

anything-about-it/ 

 

Garrett, Ronnie. Don’t Cowboy Up: Healthy Agencies Help Officers Get Out of the Saddle and 

 Ride the Waves of Their Emotions to Keep Stress Disorders at Bay. Law Enforcement  

Technology Vol. 33, Issue 2, Feb. 2006 

 

Heider, John, The Tao of Leadership Humanics New Age, Atlanta 1997 

 

(IARD), Immediate Action Rapid Deployment Tactic Retriev 

https://www.police1.com/police-products/wmd-equipment/ppe/articles/immediate- 

action-rapid-deployment-new-rules-of-engagement-wbXig9LBrPJRnpQh/Page Break 

ICS100, Incident Command System 

 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICS100.pdf 

 

Katz, Jackson. The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help 

 Sourcebooks, Inc. Naperville 2006 

 

Kotter, John P. What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review December 2001, 

 

Los Angeles Magazine, 2022 

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/santa-monica-police-may-31/sions Into Results 

 

Maran, Thomas K.;Baldegger, Urs; Klosel, Kilian, Turning Vi: Unraveling the 

Distinctive Paths of Leading with Vision and Autonomy To Goal Achievement.   

Leadership and Organization Development Journal Vol. 34 No. 1 2022 

 

Pink, Daniel H, Drive: The surprising Truth About What motivates Us Penguin Group New Your 

2009 

 

Rentschler, Carrie Filmic, Witness To the 1964 Kitty Genovese Murder Urban History Vol. 43 Iss. 

4 2016 

 

Sanborn, Mark, You Don’t Need a Title to Be a Leader: how anyone, anywhere Can Make a 

Positive Difference. Waterbook Press, Colorado Springs 2006 

 

 

Sanderson, Catherine, The Bystander effect: The Psychology of Courage and Inaction William 

Collins Publication. London 2020 

 

Schein, Edgar and Schein, Peter, Organizational Leadership and Culture Jossey Bass. New York 

 2016 

 

Staunstrup, Per A., Management. By Objectives is Still Relevant, 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/management-objectives-still-relevant-per-aae-staunstrup/ 

 

Sung, Moon J.; Yoon, Dong-Yeol; Han, Caleb S., Does Job Autonomy Affect Job Engagement? 

Social Behavior and Personality journal Vol. 50 Iss. 5 (2022) 

 

Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting 

Report. 2022 

 https://house.texas.gov/_media/pdf/committees/reports/87interim/Robb-Elementary- 

Investigative-Committee-Report.pdf 

 

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.

Helping Civilization Understand Business

By Bo Yang Ph.D. • April 23, 2025
In China, you can see countless interviews with successful entrepreneurs on TV, online, or in magazines. The same is true in the U.S.—probably even more so. I imagine this stylish trend must have originated in America. These interviews often show entrepreneurs sincerely talking about childhood dreams and beliefs they’ve held for decades. They’ll share how they stayed committed to those dreams and step by step made them come true. Over the past few years, I’ve had the chance to meet a few Chinese entrepreneurs—some of whom I had previously seen on TV or in magazines. Once we got to know each other better, they started sharing stories that were quite different from their media narratives. They admitted that their childhoods were hardly filled with grand dreams. What truly pushed them into business were hunger, poverty, cunning—or sometimes, just luck. I am not a nihilist, nor am I trying to say that dreams and beliefs are nothing but marketing gimmicks, exposed through off-the-record conversations. What I mean is: this is a realist world. It’s entirely possible for people to achieve business success through the pursuit of profit, intelligence, hard work, and a bit of luck. Many people don’t fully understand how they even became successful—until they already are. Of course, the world isn’t just about realism. Some people, once successful, begin to seek meaning in their lives. They want to keep doing valuable things—not just by luck, but through genuine understanding. At this point, they need to go back and reexamine what business really means. So what does business really mean? If you asked a Chinese scholar from a thousand years ago, he would most likely say that business is linked to something like original sin. Of course, Chinese culture doesn’t contain the Christian idea of original sin, but when talking about commerce or merchants, scholars would often describe businesspeople as inherently tainted by something spiritually corrupt. If you asked a classical economist like Adam Smith, you’d get a much more generous answer. Classical economists openly accept the profit motive as part of human nature, and they’d go further to say that this motive is a major driver of civilization. The accumulation of social wealth, improved quality of life, and progress of civilization all rely on individuals—driven by profit—to create rules, use their talents, and generate value. After classical economics, this line of thinking became the default lens for understanding business and commercial civilization. Even though Marxism and Nazism have violently attacked the profit motive, modern commercial civilization has not only survived—it has thrived. The great achievement of classical economics was to build a causal relationship between the pursuit of profit and the progress of civilization. But the question remains: is that all there is? The entrepreneurs I know, who fought their way through tough business landscapes, would never doubt the role of the profit motive. But some of them also have a vague sense that business isn’t just about making money. After a few successful ventures, some start to long—consciously or unconsciously—for cleaner businesses, meaningful businesses, even beautiful ones. They may not be able to articulate this impulse, so instead, they go on TV or into magazines and talk about childhood dreams and ideals. These aren’t real memories—they’re symbolic stories. What exactly drives commercial civilization? Peter Drucker agreed with the classical economists, but only halfway—because they only got it halfway right. Drucker never denied the profit motive. But he believed that all successful business activity is a discovery and creation of order. And that’s what makes it so important. Not only do entrepreneurs and managers need to rethink the meaning of business, but ordinary citizens in modern society do too. Drucker’s book Managing for Results, published in 1964, is still seen by many as a hands-on business guide—and rightly so. Few of his works are as focused on practical application, packed with diagrams and terminology. But what’s truly interesting about the book is how, while walking readers through practical operations, Drucker is also helping them rethink what business actually is. He starts right where most businesspeople do—with the desire to make money. But he warns: not every boss who makes money actually understands how they made it—or which products brought in the profit. To figure that out, they have to understand their business as a whole. But doing that means stepping out of personal ego and illusions of success. It means knowing which accounting method reveals the truth. It means identifying which products are making money—and then asking why. And the right way to find out why a product makes money isn’t to ask the product manager, engineer, or designer—it’s to understand the customer’s needs. If the boss and the product manager are serious about understanding the customer, they’ll realize the customer isn’t buying a product—they’re buying value, value that meets a particular need. And customer needs change constantly—just like the weather. Even the smartest people can only partly predict these shifts. The wise approach is to treat change as a given and figure out how to deal with it, manage it, and adapt to it. Once they accept this truth, bosses and managers begin to see the market differently. Results are not things created inside a company—they’re things selected by customers in the marketplace. Profit isn’t wealth created by the company and kept by it; it’s a risk buffer that allows the company to stay in the market. Innovation isn’t a CEO suddenly struck by inspiration; it’s people with entrepreneurial spirit using new combinations of resources to meet customer needs and produce performance. A boss who’s serious about business—and honest about reality—can start out wanting to make money and end up with an entirely new perspective, and a deeper understanding of business. At the end of Managing for Results, Drucker wrote something striking. He believed that not only entrepreneurs and managers need to understand business—they have a responsibility to help the public understand it too. They must become educators in civil society. Even today, in modern, industrialized nations with booming economies, many well-educated citizens still don’t understand business. They look down on it. Some even hate it. They don’t lack conscience—if anything, they’re overflowing with it—but they lack imagination and understanding. They don’t see that business is actually a form of rational exchange and creative mutual benefit between people. And because they don’t understand this, they not only despise business—they become impatient with any kind of rational exchange or creative collaboration. Instead, they get used to imposing their moral preferences on others. That kind of moral arrogance keeps producing hatred and division in modern society. Of course, Drucker didn’t believe business could solve all of society’s problems. But he did believe that the motive behind commercial civilization isn’t only about profit. He also believed that civilized business itself is a form of education for modern society. Because civilization—no matter where it appears—always involves understanding, creating, sharing, and exchanging organizational frameworks. As he wrote: “The economic task, if done purposefully, responsibly, with knowledge and forethought, can indeed be exciting and stimulating, as this book has, I hope, conveyed. It offers intellectual challenge, the reward of accomplishment, and the unique enjoyment man derives from bringing order out of chaos.” Drucker often quoted the British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). As far as I know, Whitehead may be the only modern philosopher—besides Drucker—who truly understood the beauty of business. In his 1925 book Science and the Modern World, Whitehead wrote something strikingly similar: “Art is not limited to sunsets. A factory—by virtue of its machines, its community of workers, its service to the general public, its reliance on organizational and design genius, and its potential as a source of wealth for shareholders—is a living organism rich with value.” But Whitehead also said something even more important, in The Adventure of Ideas (1933): “Plato was right: The creation of the world—the world of civilized institutions—is the victory of persuasion over force.” And business civilization—especially the kind that Drucker and Whitehead envisioned, one that creates order and beauty—is perhaps the most brilliant demonstration of how persuasion can triumph over conquest.  As Drucker said, it’s not just businesspeople who need to understand this. Every citizen of the modern world should too. Because even now, the opposite impulse is still alive—the desire to replace persuasion with conquest and turn business into a game of domination.

Satya Nadella and the Liberal Art of Management

By Robert Kirkland Ph.D. • April 21, 2025
When Satya Nadella assumed the role of Microsoft’s Chief Executive Officer in February 2014, the company was experiencing the early symptoms of organizational sclerosis. Though still profitable, it had lost ground to more agile competitors in the mobile and cloud sectors. Internally, Microsoft had become fragmented—defined more by turf battles than innovation. The challenges Nadella inherited resembled those Peter Drucker articulated decades earlier in his conceptualization of the Functioning Society of Institutions (Drucker, 1946). Drucker’s view—deeply shaped by the failure of social cohesion in interwar Europe—called for institutions to reorient themselves not just around efficiency, but around meaning, moral purpose, and self-development. Nadella’s Microsoft has arguably become one of the clearest corporate embodiments of Drucker’s philosophy of Management as a Liberal Art (Drucker, 1989). Much of Nadella’s success can be attributed to his emphasis on empathy and cultural reinvention. Prior to his appointment, Microsoft was widely seen as a combative, insular organization (Lohr, 2014). Nadella moved swiftly to change this. In his internal communications and public interviews, he spoke often of empathy—not as a rhetorical flourish, but as a managerial imperative. This commitment mirrored Drucker’s belief that management must engage the whole human being, acknowledging both rational capability and emotional complexity (Drucker, 1989). Drucker emphasized that organizations ought to be places where people grow in both skill and character. Nadella’s redefinition of leadership as empathetic listening and continuous learning operationalized that belief in a modern, corporate context. At the center of Nadella’s early cultural transformation was the introduction of a "growth mindset," a concept he borrowed from psychologist Carol Dweck (Dweck, 2006). Employees were encouraged to ask questions, seek feedback, and approach problems with humility. Drucker had long argued that a functioning institution required the cultivation of self-awareness and wisdom (Drucker, 1993). Nadella, in fostering a company-wide learning orientation, aligned Microsoft's trajectory with the MLA principle that personal development and organizational mission must progress hand-in-hand. The result was an environment that encouraged intellectual humility without sacrificing performance. Equally important in understanding Nadella’s alignment with Drucker’s MLA framework is the redefinition of Microsoft's mission. Under Steve Ballmer, the mission had been tightly product-focused: "a PC on every desk and in every home." Nadella’s version was broader and more aspirational: “to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more” (Microsoft, 2017). Drucker might have called this a shift from a narrow economic mandate to a wider societal purpose. In The Concept of the Corporation, Drucker (1946) warned against corporations existing as islands of profit, detached from community responsibilities. Nadella’s mission reframed Microsoft not just as a tech vendor but as a social actor—a stakeholder in global development. Drucker’s emphasis on function and status within a functioning institution also finds modern expression in Nadella’s restructuring of Microsoft's performance evaluation system. The previous stack-ranking model—which pitted employees against each other—was scrapped (Wingfield, 2013). It had rewarded individual performance over team cohesion, eroding trust and stifling creativity. Nadella implemented a performance system that rewarded collaboration, curiosity, and contributions to others’ success. This pivot acknowledged Drucker’s claim that organizations succeed not when individuals compete within them, but when their actions contribute meaningfully to a shared mission (Drucker, 1989). In accordance with Drucker’s MLA principle that organizations must exist within society—not apart from it—Nadella also led Microsoft into a new era of corporate social responsibility. Under his watch, Microsoft committed to becoming carbon negative by 2030, developed AI tools for accessibility, and began publicly advocating for ethical technology development (Microsoft, 2020). Drucker (1999) asserted that institutions must balance individual rights with societal duties. Nadella’s policies gave concrete expression to this ideal, embedding corporate ethics into strategy, not as appendages but as essential elements of long-term resilience. Crucially, Nadella has approached leadership with the recognition that authority alone does not confer legitimacy. Drucker emphasized the importance of persuasion over coercion, process over fiat (Drucker, 1990). Nadella, rather than enforcing top-down directives, frequently invites employee participation in major shifts. Microsoft’s move into open source software—once unthinkable—was carefully socialized within the organization and presented not as an edict, but as a necessary cultural and business evolution (Miller, 2018). The broader implications of Nadella’s leadership can be understood through Drucker’s transdisciplinary lens. Drucker saw management as a “liberal art” because it required the application of ethics, psychology, history, and even theology in decision-making (Drucker, 1989). Nadella frequently cites literature, philosophy, and biography in his public remarks. His personal reflections often involve moral and philosophical introspection, underscoring Drucker’s belief that leadership is a humanistic endeavor requiring breadth of thought and emotional depth (Nadella, 2017). Despite Microsoft’s technological focus, Nadella’s management philosophy resists technocratic reductionism. His belief that people—not platforms—are the key to innovation affirms Drucker’s warning that effective management is not merely quantitative but judgment-based (Drucker, 1990). Microsoft’s market capitalization under Nadella has more than tripled, underscoring that an ethical, human-centered organization is not incompatible with economic success (Nasdaq, 2024). As Drucker argued in The New Realities, leadership in a knowledge society must move beyond command structures and embrace complexity, diversity, and continual learning (Drucker, 1989). Nadella has not only embraced these values—he has embedded them into Microsoft’s organizational DNA. His leadership demonstrates that Management as a Liberal Art is more than a theoretical framework; it is a viable, proven, and necessary strategy for organizational renewal and social relevance in the 21st century. References · Drucker, P. F. (1946). The concept of the corporation. New York: The John Day Company. · Drucker, P. F. (1989). The new realities: In government and politics, in economics and business, in society and world view. New York: Harper & Row. · Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. New York: HarperBusiness. · Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness. · Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperBusiness. · Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. · Lohr, S. (2014, February 4). Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s new chief, is a company man. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/technology/satya-nadella-named-chief-of-microsoft.html · Microsoft. (2017). Our mission. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/about · Microsoft. (2020). Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/ · Miller, C. C. (2018, October 22). How Satya Nadella remade Microsoft as an open source company. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/technology/microsoft-open-source.html · Nadella, S. (2017). Hit refresh: The quest to rediscover Microsoft’s soul and imagine a better future for everyone. Harper Business. · Nasdaq. (2024). Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) stock performance. Nasdaq.com. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/msft · Wingfield, N. (2013, November 12). Microsoft alters employee review process. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/technology/microsoft-alters-employee-review-process.html
Show More