Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

Peter Drucker on Social Ecology, Balancing Change and Continuity, and Building a Functioning Society

Byron Ramirez, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

Dec 07, 2020

Towards the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century, Peter F. Drucker became known as the guru of management and as ‘the man who invented management’ (BusinessWeek, 2005). Ever since his “The Concept of the Corporation” (1945), where he examined General Motors, Drucker focused his writings on the structure and internal dynamics of organizations. He spent decades studying the way people work, and the ways managers manage. Drucker also examined how people work under different contexts and environments. For several years, his works primarily focused on private sector organizations, their management practices, programs, and performance.



Over time, however, Drucker seems to have transformed from a management author and consultant into a social ecologist. In his “Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices” (1973), we can see Drucker’s emphasis on managerial tasks, managerial work, managerial tools, managerial responsibilities, and the role of top management, across all organizations, including nonprofits. Some years later Drucker would write “Managing in Turbulent Times” (1980), where he reveals his concern for the future of business, the economy, and society.


Drucker’s works became increasingly permeated with examples of matters surrounding society at large. Drucker would later write “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” (1985), where he advised all organizations, including public-service institutions, to become entrepreneurial in order to survive and prosper in a market economy. Years later, Drucker explained: “My interest in, and concern for, community, society, and polity, goes back a very long time, all the way back to 1927 and 1928.” (Drucker, 2003).


Perhaps one of Drucker’s greatest strengths was his ability to observe the environment that surrounded him. He possessed an uncanny ability to see things that others had not recognized, and to focus on details that many overlooked. Joseph Maciariello, Emeritus Professor of Social Science and Management at the Drucker School of Management, and who collaborated with Drucker on many publications, writes: “One of the most important duties of the social ecologist for Drucker is to identify major trends that have already emerged in the nub but have not yet made their impact felt on the institutions of society.” (Maciariello, 2005).


Drucker believed that freedom and dignity were imperative to building effective organizations in modern society. And he expressed his recognition of these principles. Drucker’s “The Frontiers of Management” (1986) and “The New Realities” (1989) highlighted that changes in society are inevitable, and thus, we must realize that change represents opportunity. Rather than perceiving change as an inconvenience, we should treat it as an opportunity to grow and develop. Moreover, Drucker advises all of us to focus on what to do today in reflection of tomorrow. A few years later, Drucker reveals the focal points of his work. Drucker writes: “Finally there is one continuing theme, from my earliest to my latest book: the freedom, the dignity, the status of the person in modern society, the role and function of organization as instrument of human achievement, human growth and human fulfillment, and the need of the individual for both, society and community.” (Drucker, 1992)


Drucker focused many of his writings on improving society as a whole, and fostering the common good. Drucker writes: “But what I learned from Toennies — and never forgot — is the need for both, a community in which the individual has status, and a society in which the individual has function.” (Drucker, 2003) This particular excerpt embodies the roots of Drucker’s philosophy of management as a liberal art (MLA).


One can observe Drucker’s own transformation by examining his initial works which focus on for-profit organizations to later writings which converged on topics surrounding communities and society. Drucker writes: “I consider myself a social ecologist concerned with man’s man-made environment the way the natural ecologist studies the biological environment.” (Drucker, 1992) In some of his writings, Drucker explains that he perceives himself as a social ecologist who recognizes change and continuity. Drucker states: “Social ecology is a practice. Its aim is to maintain the balance between continuity and conservation on the one hand, and change and innovation on the other.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker adds: “Fundamental to the discipline of social ecology…is the belief in responsibility, in authority grounded incompetence, and in compassion.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker emphasizes these points because he argues that in order for society to improve as a whole, we must look at our existences (lives) as being inter-related, inter-connected. Drucker posits that if organizations and individuals strive toward maintaining the balance between continuity and change, society will benefit.


Drucker explains to us that his work as a social ecologist also evolved over time and that he realized that environmental conditions were changing. Drucker states: “In working on this book I began to realize that totally new — indeed unprecedented — social institutions were rapidly evolving…” (Drucker, 2003) A couple of years later, Drucker tells us: “Our society has become, within an incredibly short fifty years, a society of institutions…” (Maciariello, 2005) These reflections seem to reveal that Drucker acknowledges that he was examining society as if he were an ecologist examining an ecosystem. Drucker writes: “And it soon became obvious to me that work is a central factor in shaping and molding society, social order, and community.” (Drucker, 1992)


Drucker changed as the world that he observed around him was changing. In an attempt to better discern and explain the changes affecting society, Drucker asked poignant questions such as: “But this conclusion then led me to ask: what will, what can take the place of the ‘organic’ community of Toennies’ rural society? What can again integrate individual, community and society in an Industrial Age?” (Drucker, 2003) Drucker’s ability to ask questions and observe patterns allowed him to discern changes in organizations and society.


One of Drucker’s integral concepts is that of a Functioning Society. Central to this visionary concept is the notion that freedom, dignity, and equal opportunity can provide conditions for individuals to find meaning and purpose in their lives, and in turn, individuals will be able to contribute towards the betterment of communities and society. Drucker explains: “Corporations and other businesses are the wealth-producing institutions of society. Without these private sector institutions, our public sector and social sector institutions would not have the resources to function. It is the private sector that provides the resources to fund social and public sector institutions.” (Maciariello, 2005) However, Drucker also realized the importance of other institutions’ role in society. He writes: “The work of society is carried out through different kinds of organizations, each with its own tasks. Three diverse kinds of organizations make up the society of organizations. First there are public sector organizations…then there are private sector organizations…and finally there are social sector organizations.” (Maciariello, 2005)


Drucker was undoubtedly a social ecologist as he was not only examining organisms in the ecosystem (society), but also tracking the relationship amongst organisms (public sector, social sector, and private sector) within the ecosystem (society). Drucker offers this observation: “Each institution is an organ of society. And no organ can survive the body it serves.” (Maciariello, 2005) Drucker shares his understanding and perception of society as a body, and society’s institutions as organs that help sustain the body (society).


The work of a social ecologist involves observing relationships between organisms, explaining what those relationships are, and conceiving ways to improve those relationships. Drucker attempts to improve our understanding of society and the relationships between its organizations by offering some insight. Drucker writes: “Government commands; it tries to obtain compliance. Business supplies; it tries to get paid. The nonprofit institutions however are human-change agents.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker not only understood the relationship between organisms (government, business, and nonprofit), but also tried to explain to us what their roles in society ought to be. Drucker believed that nonprofit organizations would provide human beings with those items that were not produced by either the public or private sector. Consequently, Drucker suggested that in order to meet the needs of individuals in the future, a nonprofit organization must adopt and embrace change, as it is the way to predict the future. Drucker states: “The most effective way to manage change successfully is to create it. The enterprise has to become a change agent.” (Drucker, 2001)


Drucker also believed that organizations (organisms) within society (ecosystem) must focus on what they do best. Maciariello writes: “Drucker believes that for a society to function well, its organizations should be single-purpose institutions….as a result, each organization, whether for-profit or nonprofit, should focus on a single task.” (Maciariello, 2005) It would appear that as Drucker observed society as if it were an ecosystem, he realized that every organism has a role and function to serve within such an ecosystem. Thus, Drucker suggested that each organism seek to do what it is best at doing. Hence, Drucker firmly believed that companies and individuals must build and focus on their strengths.


Also important to Drucker was the notion that social ecology is an important and necessary discipline that must be employed to better understand and improve society. Drucker writes: “But also social ecology as a discipline deals with action.” (Drucker, 1992) Drucker argues that one must take action and regard social ecology as a practice. Maciariello, who collaborated with Drucker, adds: “A principal goal of a social ecologist is to help promote continuity in the conserving institutions of society, while advancing change in the inherently destabilizing institutions of a free society.” (Maciariello, 2005) Furthermore, Maciariello explains: “Knowledge workers must become accustomed to the process of creative destruction. They must become change leaders, active in the pursuit of change.” (Maciariello, 2005) Drucker argued that we must understand our environment and observe what is changing or has changed, as change is a constant in the knowledge society.


Ecology is defined as the scientific study of relationships of organisms to one another and to their environment. Furthermore, a biotic community is one where all populations of living organisms, in a given area, interact and interconnect. Drucker studied society as if it were an ecosystem where biotic communities (biomes) are interconnected by physical, biological, and chemical processes. As such, one could argue that society sustains itself through processes similar to photosynthesis, energy flow through food chains, and recycling of nutrients. Just like a biological ecosystem, society contains organisms (organizations) that are capable of carrying on photosynthesis, and thus is able to convert light into organic material. Similarly, organizations are able to produce energy that helps sustain the ecosystem (society).


One can also draw a parallel between society and the human body. A human being is composed of a complex, highly integrated system of cells. Cells specialize and serve a specific purpose. Thus, when an aggregate of similarly differentiated cells merge, they form a tissue. Living tissue is made up of molecules which would never be able to assume the proper structure if energy were not supplied to maintain this level of organization. It is important to understand how cells (humans) obtain their energy and are able to maintain their configuration and sustain life. This is a crucial point as it may help explain and define our role and influence on society.


A cell is comprised of structural parts: cell membrane, nucleus, and cytoplasm. Similarly, human beings are also made up of structural parts: emotional, physical, intellectual, and spiritual. It is important to think of the complexity of humans (cells) when studying society (human body). For instance, a human being may be able to perform effectively if she or he carries a high level of protoplasm (knowledge), which allows her or him to continually carry on dynamic biochemical processes. There are individuals whose “mitochondria” may not contain the same ability to break down glycogen and glucose into water and carbon dioxide, and thus form energy. All individuals are different, just as cells are different. The important point is that when cells (humans) are aggregated, they form a human body (society). Comparatively, when organisms (organizations) are aggregated, they form an ecosystem.


Throughout his body of work Drucker reminds us to identify major trends that have already emerged, but have not yet made an impact on the institutions of society. One can look around and realize that the world continues to change rapidly. While there are continuous emerging technologies aimed at addressing social challenges, we must evaluate what needs to change, and what we ought to maintain. Innovation and technology alone cannot remedy many of the social issues we currently face.


Humans must work together to improve their interactions and relationships while helping to build a society that functions more effectively. It is in the best interest of society that we do so. We should collectively look to build common good and to do so by improving our organizations. We must learn to manage people effectively while giving them an opportunity to develop their full potential. We must nurture freedom and dignity. Thirty years from now, our ecosystem (society) will have changed, and we will need each other as much as we do today. As Drucker once wrote: “No organ can survive the body it serves”.


References

  • Denning, S. (2013). The Founder of 21st Century Management: Peter Drucker. Forbes.
  • Drucker, P. F. (Ed.). (2003). A Functioning Society: Selections from Sixty-five Years of Writing on Community, Society, and Polity. Transaction Publishers.
  • Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper Collins, New York, New York
  • Drucker, P. F. (1980). Managing in Turbulent Times. Harper Business. New York, New York
  • Drucker, P. F. (1992). Reflections of a Social Ecologist. Society, 29(4), 57–64.
  • Drucker, P. F. (1986). The Frontiers of Management. EP Dutton. New York, New York
  • Drucker, P. F. (1989). The New Realities: In Government and Politics, In Economics and Business. Society and World View. Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Drucker, P. F. (2001). The Next Society. The Economist.
  • Editor, (2005). The Man Who Invented Management. Business Week, 28, 102.
  • Maciariello, J. A. (2005). Peter F. Drucker on a Functioning Society. Leader to Leader, 37, 26–34.

The Specifics of Management of the Knowledge Worker

By Ryan Lee • 07 Nov, 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. • 07 Nov, 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.

Revolutions in Labor Hierarchies

By Ryan Lee • 24 Oct, 2024
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.
Show More
Share by: