Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

The Value of Interdisciplinary Thinking

Karen Linkletter Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

October 1, 2024

Welcome to the fourth blog post in this series. We’ve covered debates about the nature of knowledge, the concept of knowledge work and its evolution, and the wise use of knowledge and information. In this issue, I’d like to focus on the importance of transdisciplinary knowledge in critical thinking in all organizations. 


We don’t have to be experts in a given field to use the skill sets and expertise that different disciplines can teach us. The field of history is an excellent example of how to use interdisciplinary thinking in exercising judgment. 


For instance, what can the discipline of history teach managers and practitioners who make decisions in today’s organizations?


Different kinds of evidence: Historians are trained to understand the importance of evidence. First-hand sources are crucial to gaining a sense of what happened from multiple perspectives. These are accounts from people who witnessed events as they happened. Secondary sources are filtered through someone’s viewpoint. John Dean, an American attorney, served as Richard Nixon’s White House counsel during the Watergate scandal. Dean played a significant role in the coverup of the administration’s attempts to illegally obtain information from the Democratic National Committee during Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign. Dean’s statements and testimony regarding events during the Nixon administration would be considered primary evidence. Journalist Garrett Graff’s 2022 book, Watergate: A New History, is a secondary source, analyzing the historical event using multiple sources, including public records. While Dean’s statements reveal his own perspective of events, the Graff work presents his analysis of multiple sources, including many primary sources. We need both the evidence of people who were “in the room” and those who are more removed. Lincoln famously assembled a cabinet that was a “team of rivals,” consisting of people who would have reason to disagree with him or challenge his decisions. Drucker discussed the importance of dissenting opinions/perspectives in decision making. As leaders, we need to watch for our tendency to listen to or consider sources that seem comfortable and familiar to us.


Understanding bias: When I taught history, students often resorted to the argument that all sources were biased, and therefore unreliable. I told them that if their life project was a search for an unbiased source, they would be unfulfilled. Human beings are, by nature, filled with implicit and other biases. The sooner we realize this, the better. As historians, we deal with this all the time as part of the context of our sources. A slaveholder during the debates on the Constitution would obviously have favored maintaining slaveholding states. The fact that we find this position abhorrent today is irrelevant; the debates regarding the validity of slavery were a real part of American history, and economic interests played a pivotal role in arguments for maintaining the system of bondage. Today, a major oil and gas landholder will obviously be “biased” against legislation that is unfavorable to her position. Those who favor more affordable housing will be “biased” towards legislation that forces rent controls, low-income housing construction, and accommodations for unhoused people. The problem is with the word “bias” and its negative connotations. Advocates for a particular position will advance arguments that give more weight to their viewpoint. They may be paid to do so, or they may do so as part of an organizational mission and vision. The more interesting questions lie in our unrecognized biases. Every individual needs to be held accountable for considering their own implicit biases. Are there people that I, for some reason, view in a negative light? Is it because of their economic status? Political leanings? Speech patterns? Appearance? The more we engage with interdisciplinary thinking, the more we are forced to confront our own state of knowledge, its basis on assumptions, and our blind spots that result from a lack of exposure to different modes of analysis. 


Importance of context: Decisions and judgments are not made in a vacuum. Local, regional, and international events can impact even small decisions. Rosa Parks did not sit in the white section of a public bus because she was old and tired. She was a political activist capitalizing on a change signaled by a Supreme Court decision (Brown vs. Board of Education). In this context, a single individual’s decision was driven by a shift in attitudes about race in the United States that had been building since the early 1900s and exploded after the end of the Second World War. Sometimes, the timing of a decision involves understanding the temperature of society, not just the room. If you have a major change to implement in your organization, is now really the time to do it (even if you want to do it now, or the budget calendar pushes you to do it, or whatever other internal force is driving that decision)? Look at some of the corporate blunders that involved a failure to read the room (Bud Light’s transgender promotional campaign for example). The “culture wars” in the United States over what is acceptable in popular culture and advertising has created a mine field for marketers seeking to cultivate customers in various demographics. 


Importance of ‘why’: We spend a lot of time on “what” decisions (what to do, what to buy, etc.). But do we think about why? I’ve always felt that it was my obligation as a person in any leadership position to explain the why behind anything: why are we taking on a new activity, spending money, bringing on people, applying for a grant, cutting a program, instituting a policy, etc. We should think a LOT about why more than what, and we should spend a LOT more of our time discussing why with people we work with. History gives us examples again. Why were George W. Bush and so many Americans convinced that Iraq would welcome a democratic program of nation building in that country? Why are we surprised when some decisions we make end up going in a completely different direction than expected?


Open mindedness: Historians don’t just deal with organizing facts. They deal with making sense of those facts. And, sometimes, that involves new interpretations of old facts. Some really innovative and fresh historical scholarship has involved looking at old material with a new view. Historians have taken revered figures, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and depicted them as real people with faults and character flaws. Similarly, they have rehabilitated people that have been depicted as shallow villains, such as Benedict Arnold, as more complicated actors. While such nuanced views of people might require effort to understand, it reflects the reality of our world, which is not black and white with easy answers to complex problems. Thinking of new ways of looking at “what we all know” is an important skill that Drucker excelled at.

We face incredible challenges with respect to exercising judgment and wisdom. It is too easy to fall into habits ingrained by our disciplines. If we are quantitatively inclined, we tend to rely on data to make decisions for us. But this discounts the importance of phronesis – the marriage of wisdom to action. We all have biases related to experience, culture, upbringing, and a multitude of other factors. Are we fuzzy or techie, and do we appreciate both? Do we lack experience, or have too much of the wrong kind of experience? Drucker’s admonition that management as a liberal art involves self-knowledge and wisdom indicates that we need to constantly think about challenging ourselves as decision makers.


Next time, in our final installment of this issue, we bring knowledge, wisdom, and technology together: How can human wisdom and AI collaborate to redefine knowledge, knowledge work, and a knowledge society?


Graff, G.M. (2022). Watergate: A new history. Simon & Schuster.

Hartley, S. (2017). The fuzzy and the techie: Why the liberal arts will rule the digital world. Houghton Mifflin. 

The Future of Knowledge Work: What Drucker can teach us

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

The Specifics of Management of the Knowledge Worker

By Ryan Lee • November 7, 2024
Nowhere is management theory demanded more than in managing the knowledge worker, and yet nowhere is management theory more inadequate in addressing a field’s issues than in knowledge work. This is the point Peter Drucker posited in his work Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1991), and to resolve it he came up with six factors that determine the productivity of the management worker. Among these, his final point that management workers “must be treated as an ‘asset’ rather than a ‘cost’” by any given organization is an important concept1. While it only gradually emerged within management theory over the century, it is crucial for any employer and any government to understand and apply if they are to retain a competitive advantage going into the future. Historically, management theory has been about improving the output of the worker through banal efficiency: how to increase the production of steel per head, how to increase the production of cars per hour, how to minimize deficient products, etc. In all these considerations, the worker is a disposable resource. When he is hired, he is set to a particular task that is typically repetitive and thus easily taught, and when he is not needed because of shortcomings in his work, company difficulties, or automation, he is laid off. Referred to as “dumb oxen”, workers were seen in management theory as machines to have productivity squeezed out of. The shift from a majority manufacturing to service-based economy during the first half of the twentieth century changed this dynamic to some extent. The American postwar economic boom introduced the office worker as a common source of employment. This trend continued throughout the conglomerate era of the 1960s and was helped by the decline of the American manufacturing industry in the 1970s. Now in a stage dominated by service and knowledge work, the American economy must approach management differently. The aforementioned cost-asset shift is a demonstration of why this is so, as Drucker’s emphasis on the knowledge worker’s autonomy means that they wield control, not only within their job but over who they should work for as well. This in addition to the high-capital nature of knowledge workers means that the old management theory approach to labor as disposable will backfire catastrophically for any company that tries it with their knowledge workers. It is also important to remember the demographic trends of the United States, and more so the world, in considering why the cost-asset shift is vital. For all of human history until some fifty years ago, population was considered to be in tandem with economic power, given larger populations yielded larger labor forces and consumer markets. Economic growth was thus also correlated with population growth, demonstrated by the historic development of Europe and the United States and the more recent examples of the developing world. Consequently, the worldwide decline in fertility rates, and the decline in population numbers in some developed countries, signals economic decline for the future. In the labor market, smaller populations mean fewer jobs that produce for and service fewer people. Although the knowledge worker has grown in proportion to the total labor market, these demographic declines will affect knowledge workers as well, meaning employers will have a vested interest in retaining their high-capital labor. To enforce this, the cost-asset shift will have to come into play. The wants and needs of the knowledge worker pose a unique challenge in the field of management. Autonomy, for the first time, can be regarded as a significant factor affecting all other aspects of this labor base. What good does a large salary provide a knowledge worker if they don’t feel that they are welcome at an institution? How would they perceive that their work is not being directed towards productive pursuits at their corporation, especially given the brain work and dedication given to it? Of course, the fruits of one’s labor has been a contentious issue in management ever since compensation and workers’ rights became a universal constant with the Industrial Revolution, but this is augmented by the knowledge worker’s particular method of generating value. Given that Drucker poses their largest asset and source of value as their own mind, they will intrinsically have a special attachment to their work almost as their brainchild. Incentivizing the knowledge worker is also only one part of this picture. Per Drucker, the knowledge worker’s labor does not follow the linear relationship between quantity invested and returned. The elaborate nature of knowledge work makes it heavily dependent upon synergy: the right combination of talent can grow an organization by leaps and bounds, while virtually incompatible teams or partnerships can render all potential talent useless. And the human capital cost of the knowledge worker, both in their parents and the state educating them and in cost to their employers, is astronomical compared to all previous kinds of labor. In conclusion, the needs and wants of the knowledge worker must be met adequately, especially in the field of management. Management must almost undergo a revolution to adapt to this novel challenge, for the knowledge worker is the future of economic productivity in the developed world. Those employers that successfully accommodate the demands of this class of talent will eventually reign over those that do not accept that this is the direction economic productivity is headed.  References Drucker, P. F. (1991) Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Harper Business.

The Wisdom and Continuing Relevance of Peter Drucker

By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. • November 7, 2024
What is wisdom? The dictionary says it is knowledge of what is true and right coupled with just judgment as to action. Jennifer Rowley reports that it is the “ability to act critically or practically in a given situation. It is based on ethical judgment related to an individual's belief system.” (Rowley 2006 p. 255). So, wisdom seems to be about deciding on or doing an action based on moral or ethical belief in helping other people. This clearly describes Peter Drucker and his often prescient ideas For the 100 th anniversary of Peter Drucker’s birth, Harvard Business Review dedicated its November 2009 magazine to Drucker. In one of the articles about Drucker by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2009 p. 1), What Would Peter Say? Kanter posits that, Heeding Peter Drucker's wisdom might have helped us avoid—and will help us solve numerous challenges, from restoring trust in business to tackling climate change. He issued early warnings about excessive executive pay, the auto industry’s failure to adapt and innovate, competitive threats from emerging markets, and the perils of neglecting nonprofit organizations and other agents of societal reform. Meynhardt (2010) calls Drucker a towering figure in Twentieth Century management. He says no other writer has had such an impact. He is well-known to practitioners and scholars for his practical wisdom and common sense approach to management as a liberal art. Drucker believed that there is no how-to solution for management practice and education. Doing more of “this” and less of “that” and vice versa is not how Drucker suggests managers do their work. Rather, Drucker relies more on morality and the virtue of practical wisdom to solve problems related to organizations. The virtue that Drucker talks about cannot be taught. It must be experienced and self-developed over time. A good example of this is Drucker’s Management by Objectives (MBO). Drucker does not give technical advice on how to initiate MBO. Rather he wisdomizes his moral convictions that integrating personal needs for autonomy with the quest of submitting one’s efforts to a higher principle (helping people) ensures performance by converting objective needs into personal goals. (Meynhardt, 2010). Peter Drucker published thirty-eight articles in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) and seven times won the McKinsey Award presented annually to the author of the best article published during the previous year in HBR. No other person has won as many McKinsey awards as Drucker The former editor-in-chief of Harvard Business Review, Thomas A. Stewart, quotes Peter Drucker; “The few of us who talked of management forty years ago were considered more or less deranged.” Stewart says that this was essentially correct. Harvard Business Review's very mission is to improve management practice. Stewart says this mission is inconceivable without Drucker’s work. Drucker’s work in management planted ideas that are as fruitful today as they ever were. Stewart posits that each year, managers discover extraordinary and immediate relevance in articles and books that were written before they were born or even before their parents were born. Stewart (2016) tries to answer the questions: Why does Drucker’s work endure? and Why is Drucker still relevant? First, was Drucker’s talent for asking the right questions. He had an instinct for being able to not let the urgent drive out the important, for seeing the trees, not just the forest. This allowed him to calmly ask pertinent questions that encouraged clients to find the proper course to take. Secondly, Drucker was able to see whole organizations. Instead of focusing on small particular problems. Ducker had the ability to find the overarching problem as well. Stewart uses Drucker’s 1994 HBR article, The Theory of the Business to make this point. Many people were trying to analyze the problems of IBM and General Motors by looking for root causes and trying to fix the blame. Drucker, on the other hand, argued correctly that the theories and assumptions on which they had managed successfully for many years were outdated. This article is as relevant today as it was in 1994 because Drucker took the “big picture view.” And no one else has ever been so skillful at describing it. Thirdly, starting in 1934, Drucker spent two years at General Motors with the legendary Alfred P. Sloan, immersed in the workings of the automaker and learning the business from within. This allowed him to talk with authority, but he has always stayed “street smart and wise.” This mentoring helped give Drucker the gift of being able to reason inductively and deductively. He could infer a new principle or a theory from a set of data or being confronted with a particular problem; he could find the right principle to apply to solve it. Drucker’s first article published in HBR, Management Must Manage, challenged managers to learn their profession not in terms of prerogatives but in terms of their responsibilities, to assume the burden of leadership rather than the mantle of privilege. Many in the management/leadership field probably found Drucker to be “deranged,” but in 2024, this is important advice for leader (Stewart 2006). Just a few more of Drucker’s ideas that seemed well outside the mainstream when he proposed them but are standard practice today include: Managing Oneself, Privatization, Decentralization, Knowledge Workers, Management by Objectives, Charismatic Leadership Being Overrated, CEO Outsize Pay Packages, and Enthusiasm of the Work of the Salvation Army (Rees, 2014). Clearly, Drucker remains relevant! References: Kanter, R. 2009. What would Peter say? Harvard Business Review. November, 2009. Meynhardt, T. 2010. The practical wisdom of Peter Drucker: Roots in the Christian tradition. Journal of Management Development Vol. 29. No. 7/8. Rees, M. 2014 The wisdom of Peter Drucker. Wall Street Journal. Dec. 12, 2014. Rowley, J. 2006. Where is the knowledge that we have lost in knowledge? Journal of Documentation. Vol. 62, Iss. 2. 251-270. Stewart, T. 2006. Classic Drucker. Editor Thomas A. Stewart. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Show More
Share by: