Leadership Lessons from Horses
Karen E Linkletter, Ph..D.
PUBLISHED:
Mar 31, 2022
I thought I’d give you a lighter piece this month. There is so much weighing all of us down, from the threat of global war, the lingering pandemic, inflation…
So, rather than write about Peter Drucker’s lessons to be learned, I thought I would share lessons from another source. You probably don’t know this, but your Acting Research Director at MLARI is also an avid equestrian (which means I like to ride horses). I own two, a male and a mare (female). I came to this sport very late in life, as my mother was terrified of horses and wouldn’t let me near them. So I fell in love with these animals in my forties, and have never looked back.
Horses have a lot to teach us about leadership, as others have noted (Rajfura, Tomasz, and Robert Karaszewski. "Horse Sense Leadership: What Can Leaders Learn from Horses?." Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership 5.1 (2018): 61-83; Kelly, Simon. "Horses for courses: Exploring the limits of leadership development through equine-assisted learning." Journal of Management Education 38.2 (2014): 216-233). It’s an interesting area of inquiry that, I think, relates intensely to MLA. I hope this piece piques your interest in things related to horses and leadership. These are my own thoughts independent of outside research:
1) Horses are prey animals.
As large as they are, horses are preyed upon. Unlike dogs, who travel in packs and attack, horses move in herds, but for safety because they are food for predators (in the wild). This mentality is in their DNA. Think of them as giant rabbits. Any change in their environment means a threat. And you may not perceive the change that they see. The light changes when the seasons shift. We don’t see that, but they do. The subtle rustle of an animal in the bushes can set a horse off. All of these slight changes result in reactions, that may be small (an ear tilting) or dramatic (bolting to get out of there).
- Lesson: Change is scary. Drucker wrote about the need for balancing continuity and change, and that too much sudden change created disorientation and disruption. Change is part of life, but it needs to be managed and lead. Horses dislike any kind of change in their environment that can be perceived as a threat. Think about this when you are implementing new procedures, policies, ideas, or programs. Your idea is probably really great! But every person reacts differently to change. Some may embrace the change but need to process it (tilt the ear) while others might perceive a new policy or program as a threat (and decide to bolt). Think about each person on your team and how they might react to a change. Is it a new and interesting thing to explore? Or a scary plastic bag ghost that is chasing them? Watching horses deal with daily changes in their environment has helped me understand how to think about managing change for people.
2) Horses live in a herd.
Horses do not like to be alone. They need company, preferably the company of another horse (although if they are bonded with a human, they need that person to be there, too). There is a pecking order to a herd. One horse is the Alpha lead horse (often a mare, but not always), and then the order follows from there. Depending on the size of the herd, it gets complicated and sometimes competitive. In my barn, we have four. The Alpha (my gelding) has always held his position. He actually likes being alone and doesn’t care when the other horses leave. The bottom horse has always held his position. He hates it when any of the other horses leave. However, the other two (my mare and the other gelding) have competed for the number two and three slot. The mare has won out and is now number two. Yet, she hates being alone the most!
- Lesson: Humans are social beings. Drucker expressed this over and over in his work. People need status and function. Do they attain this at work? Or do they need to get this somewhere else? We need each other; we are not just isolated beings operating independently. The pandemic reinforced this aspect of human nature exponentially, I think. And perhaps we have lost some of our social skills after two years of being apart. Who are the natural leaders on our team? Who works well in a group, and who prefers to be independent? What are the group dynamics of your team or organization? Horses work this out. It’s a good lesson to learn.
3) Horses prefer a quiet leader.
A lot of trainers and horse people use force and aggression to deal with the animals. I don’t find this very effective, based on observation. Horses need a leader, but they want a leader who is assertive in a confident, quiet way. If a person walks up to a horse with a slouching body position, they are signaling weakness. But, if you walk up to a horse with a whip in your hand all the time, you are just a bully, and the horse will back away from you or, worse yet, take you on. Horses want to know that you know what you are doing, and that you won’t let them down. Trust is key. Why should a prey animal let you get on his or her back? Or tell it what to do, when it weighs 1200 pounds and you weigh a tenth of that? You can’t force a horse to do anything (unless you want to be horribly abusive). The horse has more muscle and strength than you can ever overcome. So how do you lead/manage that?
- Lesson: Trust and integrity are key to effective leadership. Drucker emphasized this over and over. Horses know when you are lying, and if you let them down, you destroy the relationship. If you tell a horse to do something that isn’t safe, that horse will not trust you again. It’s a big responsibility. Leadership is a big responsibility. It requires that you raise others up to be better, and to be the best example you can possibly be. The quiet, confident leader will always have better results than the bully or the authoritarian with the whip. What is your leadership style? Do you operate from a position of strength but also empathy and compassion? Do you give clear directions? How do you build consensus (get those 1200 pound animals to think it’s their idea to go along with the mission/vision)? In Drucker’s terms, what constitutes power in your relationships? A whip? A cookie? Or a relationship that involves communication?
4) Horses are intuitive and reactive.
As prey animals, horses have to read their environment constantly to perceive potential threats. They are thus constantly on alert. One of the things horse owners need to do is to desensitize their animals to whatever environment they are in. A horse in the wild doesn’t have to deal with urban stressors. In my neighborhood, we have all kinds of scary things, like baby strollers, umbrellas that open and close, tree trimmers, plastic bags blowing in the wind, kids on scooters and bikes…you get the idea. All of the things that are normal to us are not normal to a horse. That tumbleweed that appeared on the trail? It might be a monster out to eat me!
Horse reactions vary. Some will just look at a scary thing and give it a wide berth. Others will try to back away from it. Others will suddenly spin and run away from that scary paper bag. In short, they are highly unpredictable. No horse is immune to such incidents. That’s why it’s called a high-risk sport (I know…why do I do this???).
- Lesson: Life-Long Learning is Important. Horses need to be worked every day (a day off or two) to be in a good frame of mind and physical condition. So do we humans!!! The parallels between horses and humans continue to amaze me. Even old horses, like my 27 year-old Spencer, need mental and physical work. That keeps them from reacting to things that might be worrisome. People tend to get locked into routines as they get older. And, as Drucker noted, learning is going to be important to keep one’s job. Flexibility is crucial. Everyone who works is going to need to be willing to learn new skills, technology, and ways of viewing the world. Leaders will have to be ready to desensitize people unwilling for such change. The new software program is the equivalent of the tree trimmer to my horse. If we can present new material in terms of a life-long learning process rather than a scary threat, perhaps we can help current employees feel that they can grow within their positions.
So, think like a horse, and lead your team forward happily, strongly, and with trust
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.
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.
A specter is haunting the world – though this time, the dynamics of labor have shifted to the point where this specter cannot resemble a communist force. If Drucker’s works have been any indication, the rise of the knowledge worker is a first in the history of human productivity. This first has, among many other things, overturned the traditional labor hierarchies that have existed since the rise of agriculture. For much of history, societal hierarchies and their subsequent conflicts have been demarcated by the fine line between ruler and ruled – master and slave, lord and serf, bourgeois and proletariat, and so on. The commonality between each of these relationships has been that authority and autonomy has been largely allocated to one side – the ruling – and that the literal toil of labor has been the leverage of the other – the ruled. The rulers instructed the ruled on where to direct their labor, while the ruled prevented their rulers from siphoning too much of their earnings. Such a delicate balance, established in the first agrarian civilizations, was often upset, as shown by history’s account of countless peasant revolts and eradicated kingdoms. In his 1966 essay “The First Technological Revolution and its Consequences”, Drucker established that currently recognizable human lifestyles trace much of their origins back to this first agrarian revolution in affairs. This includes the aforementioned labor hierarchy, which has dictated government policy even into the industrial age. Even through the various industrial revolutions, the evolution of labor only affected the organization of workers, with unions and labor groups giving mass labor a platform to negotiate less violently against their employers. The base demands of labor – better wages, better working conditions – as well as the demands of their employers – more output per head, more efficiency – still belonged to the old ruler-ruled hierarchy, despite the emergence of supposedly modern fixtures of economy like the union. The rise of the knowledge worker threatens to upend this paradigm. Drucker laid out some basic facts about the knowledge worker that are relevant to dealing with this revolution. First, the knowledge worker is far more autonomous than any other kind of worker in history. Management of labor has depended on power resting largely with authority. Autonomy of the worker significantly shrinks the need for this hierarchy. Second, the knowledge worker’s output is augmented by information technology. Drucker identified this as the computer in his time, but artificial intelligence fits this role as well. In previous times, any labor-altering advancements in technology only created more jobs through economic expansion. The Luddites’ archnemesis, the textile machines dominating Britain and the United States in the early nineteenth century, created a plethora of employment through an explosion of demand for consumer goods. The assembly line that threatened the monopoly of high-cost artisans generated jobs for countless factory workers. All these phenomena were driven by the mechanization of work – repetitive work, that is. Even the replacement of the artisan was the simplification of each step of their work into a repetitive task that any unskilled laborer could replicate. However, all these technologies simply made existing manual labor more efficient by subdividing it - an early application of management theory, but one that still required mass labor regardless. The development of the computer and AI poses a distinct form of technological automation, in tandem with the rise of the knowledge worker. For the first time, true automation has become a reality. Drucker noted that the computer, and now AI, can dictate and execute decisions that before would have required a human to do. Pairing this with the autonomy of the knowledge worker, we witness the creation of a system that foregoes the historic one-way direction of command for a more reciprocative structure where workers contribute as much feedback to their institutions as their bosses and the only defining difference in authority between either is the extended foresight required to direct the entire company forward. The United States is in a mixed position to deal with this shift in hierarchy. Historically, it has prescribed all its citizens to be equal and free, however different reality may have been. Individual liberty has been baked into the country’s persona beginning with the Founding Fathers and spanning the defining moments of American history, from the Civil War to the Frontier Thesis of 1890 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Thus, the American psyche is better adjusted to welcome the knowledge worker; the view that an American peasant never existed doesn’t exist for nothing. However, other contradictions, such as the centuries-long establishment of slavery and the historic disenfranchisement of particular groups within the United States, will contribute to friction in the transition. If not for being at direct odds with the loosening of hierarchy, these facts will at the very least create tension for the many facets of American society left behind in the deepening dependency on knowledge workers, as has recently been observed with the rise of populism on both wings of the American political spectrum. Drucker was receptive to such potential reverberations, evidenced by his concerns expressed in his work “The New Productivity Challenge” (1991). He acknowledged that however much of a role knowledge and higher service work would contribute to the American economy, the majority of the population would inevitably be outside this ecosystem, especially given the lack of concentrated education and training available to them. In that particular work he proposed that increases in productivity were crucial in maintaining the economic prosperity to generate the social stability that had prevented the oft-violent revolutions of the past. In consideration of the aforementioned hierarchical shift brought to light, the relationships between employer and employee within management theory are also important in defusing any grievances the denied populace has towards their exclusion from high-concentration work. Although service work has progressed in “employee feedback” since the mid 20th century, dissent among lower-paid service workers has risen, leading to unionization conflicts like those at Amazon and Starbucks as well as large waves of “quiet quitting” that came right after the Covid-19 pandemic. Given the prevalence of phenomena like these, management theory should heed Drucker’s warnings in advance and evaluate existing practices in employer-employee hierarchies, not only in the knowledge-worker field but in the wider service worker field as well. For if neglected, this issue shall likely boil over and erupt just as the Revolutions of 1848 manifested the specter of the labor crises sweeping Europe. As the modern maxim goes, institutions must truly adapt to having their employees “be their own boss” more than before, for the benefit of employer, employee, society, and the economy. References Drucker, P. F. (1966) The First Technological Revolution and its Consequences. Johns Hopkins University Press. Drucker, P.F. (1991) The New Productivity Challenge. Harvard Business Review.
CONTACT US
+1 (626) 350-1500
1000 S. Fremont Ave - Mailbox #45
Building A10, 4th Floor, Suite 10402
Alhambra, CA 91803
ABOUT
IMPORTANT LINKS
Subscribe for Notifications:
Subscribe
