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:

December 7, 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.


By Byron Ramirez Ph.D. February 11, 2025
Peter Drucker escribió extensamente sobre las funciones y responsabilidades de los gerentes y sobre los principios que podrían ayudar a mejorar el desempeño organizacional. En sus obras, Drucker infiere que los individuos que conforman la organización deben cultivar el autoconocimiento, la autoconciencia y desarrollar sus habilidades a través de la aplicación. Aprendemos por primera vez sobre el concepto de la gestión como arte liberal en el libro de Drucker, "The New Realities". En este texto, Drucker se refiere a la gestión como arte liberal: "La gestión es, por lo tanto, lo que la tradición solía llamar un arte liberal - 'liberal' porque trata con los fundamentos del conocimiento, el autoconocimiento, la sabiduría y el liderazgo; 'arte' porque trata con la práctica y la aplicación. Los gerentes recurren a todos los conocimientos e ideas de las humanidades y las ciencias sociales - en la psicología y la filosofía, en la economía y la historia, en las ciencias físicas y la ética. Pero deben enfocar este conocimiento en la efectividad y los resultados." (Drucker, 1989) Drucker argumentó que debemos reconocer que la naturaleza humana es imperfecta, pero que, a través de la observación y la contemplación, y mucha, mucha práctica, la toma de decisiones puede mejorarse. Con el tiempo, a medida que las personas practican la gestión de manera ética y responsable, la comunidad en general se beneficia de las decisiones tomadas en organizaciones responsables y socialmente conscientes. La gestión como arte liberal es un concepto que caracteriza una filosofía, una que se basa en los elementos del conocimiento, el autoconocimiento, la sabiduría y el liderazgo. Esta filosofía implica que cualquier individuo tiene el potencial de crecer y desarrollarse, y convertirse en un gerente efectivo, siempre y cuando este individuo se tome el tiempo para reflexionar, desarrollar habilidades y conocimientos, y adquirir continuamente experiencias que enriquecerán su perspectiva sobre cómo liderar eficazmente a otras personas. Sin embargo, Drucker reconoció que el interés propio interrumpe y, en los peores casos, impide y restringe los esfuerzos de los demás. Como tal, el gerente debe desarrollar la capacidad de observar lo que está ocurriendo dentro y fuera de la organización. Al mismo tiempo, la persona debe desarrollar la autoconciencia y la capacidad de reflexionar sobre su propio comportamiento y las decisiones que toma. Esto incluye analizar cómo las decisiones pueden influir en las acciones y el comportamiento de los demás. Es a través de la autorreflexión y la conciencia que podemos notar lo que ha funcionado, lo que no y lo que podríamos hacer de manera diferente la próxima vez que surja otra situación. Un gerente puede desarrollar inteligencia emocional, utilizando el concepto de Daniel Goleman. Y en el contexto de la gestión como arte liberal, esto es lo que llamaríamos autoconocimiento. Un gerente puede volverse más efectivo y llegar a apoyar el crecimiento y desarrollo de los demás, siempre que aprenda a valorar a las personas por quienes son, y les permita espacio para ser ellos mismos. Pero para hacer esto, el gerente debe aprender a escuchar a los demás, respetarlos y reconocer sus preocupaciones y necesidades. También es importante aprovechar las ideas y sugerencias de las personas para ayudar a encontrar soluciones. Esta es un axioma importante dentro de la gestión como arte liberal. Otro elemento clave de la gestión como arte liberal es la noción de que el individuo debe construir conocimiento. Como tal, la persona debe buscar activamente información, datos, hechos e historias que puedan ayudar a aumentar el conocimiento. Además, podemos mejorar nuestras habilidades gerenciales y decisiones aplicando una perspectiva transdisciplinaria para resolver problemas. La perspectiva transdisciplinaria proporciona al individuo una visión integrada y más holística que combina diferentes puntos de vista de las artes, las humanidades y la ciencia. Drucker postuló que podemos aprender leyendo historia, filosofía y economía, y que la reconciliación de ideas de múltiples disciplinas puede ser beneficiosa para determinar el mejor curso de acción. Drucker sugirió que la consideración cuidadosa de diferentes alternativas y efectos posteriores, contingencias y resultados potenciales, mejoraría las decisiones y permitiría que el individuo se convierta en un tomador de decisiones más efectivo. Según la gestión como arte liberal, es importante que consideremos cómo nuestras acciones influirán en los demás y que asumamos la responsabilidad de nuestras acciones. La gestión como arte liberal postula que las personas se definen a sí mismas (y sirven a la sociedad) a través de la acción responsable. Esto significa que los gerentes efectivos actuarán de manera responsable y con ética, y utilizarán su estatus y poder para promover el bienestar de la organización y su gente. Esto infiere que el individuo actuará con el mejor interés de la organización (y sus partes interesadas) en mente. Actuar con buen juicio, tener lucidez y una mejor comprensión de las situaciones y contextos es lo que llamaríamos ejercer la sabiduría. Para involucrar a las personas y construir mejores organizaciones, y en última instancia contribuir a lo que Drucker llamó una "sociedad funcional", es vital que tratemos a todas las personas dentro de la organización con respeto y dignidad. Y que ayudemos a las personas a crecer y desarrollarse y a encontrar significado en lo que hacen. Así es como se construyen las grandes organizaciones. Esto es lo que llamaríamos liderazgo. Y los líderes dentro de la organización deben ser conscientes de que el mundo evoluciona y que algunas cosas deben cambiar, mientras que otras deben mantenerse. Esto significa equilibrar el cambio y la continuidad y reconocer qué proceso o actividad necesita ser renovado, y cuál otra práctica necesita ser preservada.  La gestión como arte liberal está arraigada en la práctica y la aplicación, en la autorreflexión, en tratar a las personas con dignidad y respeto, y en usar un lente transdisciplinario para ayudar a mejorar las decisiones. Se necesita tiempo para lograr resultados y construir grandes organizaciones. Pero se puede lograr. Y las organizaciones cuyos gerentes pueden practicar y aplicar, y reflexionar y aprender continuamente de sus acciones, tienen más probabilidades de ayudar a construir una mejor comunidad y una sociedad funcional y próspera. Referencias Drucker, Peter F. (2003) A Functioning Society (Routledge, London and New York) Drucker, Peter F. (1989) The New Realities: in Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View (New York: Harper & Row) Goleman, Daniel. (2007) Emotional Intelligence. 10th ed., Bantam Books.
By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. February 7, 2025
“What does ‘Capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money? And what do ‘Free Markets’ mean when knowledge workers – and no one else can ‘own’ knowledge – are the true assets?” (Peter Drucker, 1999). This issue of my newsletter focuses on features of today’s knowledge work, and what knowledge work might look like in the future. In part one, I discussed some of the challenges associated with measuring knowledge worker productivity. In this installment, I’ll take up Drucker’s concept of “Post-Capitalist Society” and what it might mean for knowledge work in the 21st century. Fear not; this will not be an academic treatise on Marx or Marxism. But central to an understanding of our knowledge-based society is some sense of how previous industrial society was configured and structured. As I argued in the last installment of this newsletter, part of our difficulty with measuring knowledge worker productivity is that we still use the language of industrial capitalism: we measure productivity in terms of output, particularly in quantity. We lack a more modern understanding of what productivity looks like. Why? Marx and Capitalism Marx saw capitalism as a stage in history, as part of a larger pageant of human conflict. In The German Ideology (1845), Marx critiques the idealism of German philosophy as locked in the realm of thought instead of material reality. It is time, he argues, for German philosophers to stop simply criticizing each other regarding implications of spiritual matters (the nature of knowledge, etc.) but rather to address the realities of material life. Marx was reacting to the decline of Hegelian thought, and transformed Hegel’s spiritual dialectic model into dialectical materialism. For Hegel, human development was a process of conflict at the spiritual level, when human understanding is challenged by contradicting experiences and events, leading to a new level of awareness, all guided by “Geist”. Marx took this out of the spiritual realm and grounded it in worldly events; his dialectic model was still one of human transformation and development, but it morphed into a model of class conflict. Dialectical materialism involved observable conflicts in social conditions and economic status that would then be acted upon to create a new social order. Like Drucker, Marx was a social theorist, and was reacting to the dramatic changes he saw happening in his time. Marx and his associate Engels observed the transformation from a rural to an industrial society and the associated social upheavals. Marx and Engels focused on the shift from an economy where value was derived from labor to one that relied on machines and money (capital) to produce the material needs of human beings. The culmination of their efforts was Marx’s massive work, The Capital (Das Kapital), published in three volumes in 1867, 1884, and 1894. The work is an intricate analysis of capitalism as an economic system as well as a social structure. There is no substitute for actually reading the text, but, for our purposes here, Marx had several key points that are germane to our discussion of today’s knowledge society: 1. Labor theory of value : Marx challenged utilitarian viewpoints of value, stating that the value of products lies not in their satisfaction of human wants, but in the human labor used to produce them. Value is in production, not in the end-user’s perception of value. 2. Ownership of means of production : In earlier rural societies (at least those with free labor), labor owned the means of production (its own work). Under capitalism, a ruling class owned the machinery and financial instruments (the capital) necessary to production. They also, in fact, own the labor, as workers no longer have a say in their hours, working conditions, etc. Owners derive unearned income from the labor of workers who are under their control. 3. Alienation: The process of industrial production involves an increasing deskilling of work, meaning workers have less of an association with the larger purpose of the process or output. As labor is divided into more specialized functions, there is increased alienation. 4. Dialectical materialism : As capitalism increases social conflict (class conflict), it sows the seeds of its own demise. It is part of Marx’s historical theory of capitalism as one stage in human development. Eventually, socialism will replace capitalism, and workers will own the means of production, ushering in a new social order. Post-Capitalist Society In 1993, Drucker published Post-Capitalist Society, a book that advances a bold argument about Marx’s theories and the trajectories of history. It was one of his more successful books, and I think he left us with much to think about as we navigate the waters of the new or next knowledge society. Drucker looks back on Marx’s evaluation of capitalism with an historical view, much like Marx looked at Hegelian and other assessments of society in his time. In this sense, Drucker follows in the tradition of European theorists critiquing the ideas of the past, using an historical argument. According to Drucker, the manufacturing economy framed the conversation around society, economics, and politics from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Marx’s labor theory of value dominated discussions, as workers competed to have equal power and voice with owners (capitalists). However, as Drucker argues, the owners of capital (the financial titans of industry) peaked by the First World War, and were replaced by professional managers by the 1950s. The classic dialectic between labor and capital was no longer relevant by the 1950s, as “capitalists” no longer existed. Drucker posits that by the 1970s, “capital” would be in the hands of the workers themselves in the form of pensions, mutual funds, and other collective methods of corporate ownership. According to Drucker, the factors of production were no longer labor or capital, but knowledge by the mid-20thcentury. Knowledge workers owned the capital (pension funds, and later 401ks) and also owned the means/tools of production (knowledge). This perspective upended not only traditional notions of capitalism as viewing labor and capital as the primary inputs for production, but also upset the social order. Moreover, we faced a new economic challenge of measuring productivity in a new way (related to knowledge) but also a social challenge as the old service (manual labor) workers would be left behind. Furthermore, we would face a dichotomy between intellectuals and managers. Both of these conflicts are akin to what Marx alluded to in his reference to dialectical materialism. In essence, while highly critical of Marx, Drucker used a version of Marxist theory to postulate the existence of a “post-capitalist society.” Drucker was no fan of Marx but uses an historical argument and similar language about analysis of inputs (labor and capital, but in Drucker’s case, knowledge). The difference is that Drucker is not engaging in a dialectical process (and not one focused on material concerns alone). According to Drucker, one of the primary reasons that Marx’s worldwide proletarian revolution failed to materialize was the inadequacy of his model of “economic man” (his sole emphasis on material satisfaction as an indicator of society’s wellbeing). Drucker rejected this model of society, arguing for an industrial model of society where the manufacturing plant community provided meaning to the worker. Crucial to defeating the forces of totalitarianism (and Marxism, for that matter) was providing individuals in society with status and function . Status gives people a place in the social structure, whereas function provides individuals with a purpose. Economic meaning was not enough; people needed this larger sense of individual and community meaning. In the early twentieth century, because of the incredible gains in manufacturing productivity, capitalism emerged as the dominant system. However, as society moved away from industrial employment towards knowledge work, this new post-capitalist society presented new challenges – including the possibility for social disorder. Thus, Drucker turned to understanding the “ knowledge society ”, a new stage in human development. According to his analysis, what were the new challenges inherent in this new knowledge society? As we saw in the previous installment of this issue, knowledge worker productivity and its measurement represented one such challenge – one we still face. Drucker also wrestled with questions of worker motivation, social disorder, and compensation disparities. In our next installment, we’ll expand on Drucker’s concerns and see how they might help us understand where we are with our current knowledge society and the challenges we face. 
By Michael Cortrite, Ph.D. February 7, 2025
One cannot manage change. One can only be ahead of it…In a period of upheavals, such as the one we are living in, change is the norm. To be sure, it is painful and risky, and above all, it requires a great deal of very hard work. But unless it is seen as the task of the organization to lead change, the organization…will not survive. Peter Drucker in Management Challenges for the 21 st Century (2001) Alan George Lafley was the CEO of Proctor and Gamble (P&G) from 2000 to 2010 and 2013 to 2016. The Proctor and Gamble Company is a consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was founded in 1837. Today, Proctor and Gamble is healthy and is ranked 55 th in the Forbes Global 2000. In 2000, just before Lafley was appointed CEO, P&G stock dropped by almost 30% in one day, and the next week, it dropped another 11%. P&G lost $85 billion in market capitalization a few months later. Lafley described it as a crisis of confidence; inside the organization, employees were blaming each other, and outside the organization, market analysts and investors were surprised and angry. Retirees were angry over losing half of their profit-sharing nest eggs. The news media used headlines such as “P and G Investor Confidence Shot”, “Trouble in Brand City,” and “Does P&G Still Matter?” It appeared that a major, almost 200-year-old company, was in danger of going out of business. Fortunately, Lafley had the advantage of being familiar with Peter Drucker’s writings and was able to talk with him in person. What follows is an accounting of Lafley's actions using his own experience (P&G was his first CEO job) along with Peter Drucker’s writing and personal advice on sustainability. · One of Drucker’s last works was answering the question, “What is the work of the CEO?” Lafley realized that the CEO is singularly held accountable for the performance and results of the company and acted accordingly. · Trust is needed for sustainability. Trust at P&G had evolved to mean that employees could rely on the company for lifetime jobs. Lafley redefined it as consumers’ trust in the company’s brands and shareholders’ trust in its value as a long-term investment. · The consumer is boss. This mindset was emphasized to all employees. Another more famous Drucker Quote is, “The purpose of a business is to create a customer.” Lafley turned around the company-wide habit of losing touch with customers by emphasizing employees at all levels getting closer to customers. · Lafley listened to Drucker that a company must decide what business you are in (or not in). Lafley took the advice and after careful analysis caused P&G to keep some products and businesses, eliminate some products and businesses, and add some products and businesses. This was also the advice Drucker gave to Jack Welch, General Electric CEO, a few years earlier about streamlining the company by focusing on where to compete and where not to compete. Lafley expanded Drucker’s advice by adding his own statement on sustainability; “We must work on the present to earn the right to invest in the future.” · As published in the Wall Street Journal in January 2005 (The American CEO) Drucker observed that we don’t completely understand the unique role of the CEO; What is the work that only they can do and that they must do? The CEO has the power and the ultimate responsibility for business sustainability. The CEO is the link between the inside of the organization and the outside of the organization. He or she alone experiences the meaningful “outside” the organization and is responsible for understanding it, interpreting it, advocating for it, and presenting it in a way that enables sustainable sales, profit, and total shareholder return. For Lafley, “meaningful outside” can include several stakeholder classes, but it emphasizes the idea that the “Consumer is Boss.” Lafely saw that over the years, P&G employees had been drawn to internal interests, and inward focus is the enemy of growth. It is the CEO’s job to deal with outside stakeholders and have a deep understanding of their competing interests, as well as how those interests correspond with the capabilities and limitations of the organization. And Lafley went to work on reinvigorating focus on “outside the organization stakeholders” while keeping in mind that employees are a company’s most valuable asset. Strengthening relationships with analysts and investors resulted in a better understanding of their wants and needs. · Drucker said that effective CEOs make sure that the performing people are allocated to opportunities, rather than only problems. Lafley took this advice to heart and also reiterated the importance of succession planning. · Avoiding complacency in an organization is a must. The CEO should always ask, “Are we winning with those who matter most and against the very best?” The CEO should ensure that the company’s values, purpose, and standards stay relevant for the present and the future and for the businesses the company is in. CODA When looking at overall company sustainability, the difference in governance between Jack Welch of General Electric and A.G. Lafley of Proctor and Gamble is dramatic This is a potential subject for further research on sustainability. In the leadership literature Lafley is generally rated as a hands-on people person who consistently strived to develop leadership in his employees. He was respectful of employees and valued listening to them. He could be described as a servant leader or a follower of Peter Drucker’s management as a liberal art leadership style. Welch was very competitive and was also described as having a combative and aggressive personality. He stressed shareholder value and the absolute necessity of financial performance. In the name of cost-cutting, he would occasionally order massive layoffs, which caused employee resentment and mistrust. His mantra of “Win at Any Cost” has been said to damage the ethical behavior of employees. When Lafley and Welch were CEOs of their respective companies, the companies thrived. When Welch left GE in 2001 the company had “disappointing results for 2 decades.” When Lafley left P&G in 2016 the company continued to thrive and is still highly rated. Bibliography Silva, A. 2015. What Can We Learn from Great Business Leaders? Journal of Leadership Studies. 23 January 2015. Donlon, J. 2007. Proctor and Gamble. Chief Executive. Iss. 30. December 2007. 58-62. Lafley, A. G. (2009) What Only the CEO Can Do. Harvard Business Review, May 2009
Show More
Share by: