Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute

Transformation of a Bystander

Michael Cortrite, Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

May 16, 2022

What Do Being a Bystander, Moral Injury, and Purpose in Life, Have in Common?

 

In the 1960s, when I began my career as a police officer, I was initially shocked at the overt culture of racism, intolerance, and discrimination that I saw. My experience as a young police officer was that the “N” word was openly used and people of color were often victims of discrimination and excessive force. Women, gays, and other minorities could be the objects of jokes and disdain. Unfortunately, I believe this behavior continues to this day, although less overt and less often.

 

I put part of the blame for this culture on the word loyalty. Part of my unofficial training to become a police officer was that law enforcement officers are a “thin blue line” who protect society from chaos. We have to be loyal to each other; “have each other’s backs”; and “take care of our brother officers”. The effect of this “training” was that if a “brother officer” got carried away and used excessive force on an arrestee or other misconduct, other officers witnessing this excessive force would be “loyal” and not intervene or report this conduct to anyone.

 

Personally, I was programmed growing up to think of loyalty as an absolute moral value. It was only later in life that I realized that loyalty is a good value only if one is loyal to an ideal or loyal to an ethical organization. When I first heard the Samuel Johnson quote, “Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel”, I realized that the same can be said of loyalty. Police culture was using the “value” of loyalty to cover up illegal activity.

 

The unwritten rule that a police officer should not turn in a fellow officer for misconduct was enforced by the knowledge that an officer who did report misconduct would be ostracized, potentially terminated, or force to resign. The movie, Serpico, directed by Sidney Lumet, based on the true story of an idealistic New York City police officer, Frank Serpico, was released in 1973. The story describes how Serpico tried to fight bribery and excessive force corruption and was forced off the department. My experiences as a police officer lead me to believe that the events depicted in the movie are accurate. One of the last lines in the movie was a statement from Serpico: “The problem is that the atmosphere does not yet exist in which honest police officers can act without fear of ridicule or reprisal from fellow officers”. Serpico believed that the majority of police officers are not corrupt, but that this majority is afraid of exposing the few officers who are corrupt.

 

My experience is that very few officers engage in misconduct, but the corrupt officers are allowed to continue their illegal activities because the rest of the officers choose to be bystanders, rather than report the few corrupt officers. At the Museum of Tolerance, where I am a facilitator, one of the main lessons we pass on to people is that being a bystander is not a benign act. Adolph Hitler could not have perpetrated the Holocaust if the majority of the citizens of Germany did not choose to be bystanders. They chose not to protest when their Jewish neighbors were brutalized and killed. Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”.

 

So, when I was a police officer, where did I stand on reporting officers for misconduct? I’m sorry to say that for most of my career I chose to be a bystander. After I got over my misplaced ideas about loyalty as a value, I believed that If I reported misconduct by a fellow officer, that I would not be allowed to remain employed as a police officer. I chose to remain a police officer.

 

A tipping point for me about exposing misconduct by police officers started when I was testifying in a civil lawsuit for police excessive force in the mid 1980s. I was asked by the plaintiff’s attorney if I ever witnessed excessive force by police officers. I said “yes”. I was asked when was the last time I witnessed excessive force and after some thought I answered that it was in approximately the year 1979. The next question was what did I do about it. I, sadly, had to answer, “nothing”. This exchange caused me to rethink my stand on police excessive force. I came to the realization that in the several years since I was promoted to be a supervisor in 1981 I hadn’t witnessed any excessive force. I hadn’t realized that since I never witnessed excessive force any more, I had been assuming, possibly erroneously, that it suddenly stopped for some reason. Actually, I think the reason for this is that after being promoted, I was no longer trusted to not report officers who might use excessive force. No one would use excessive force while I was there. The only good news of all this was that just by my presence I was stopping any misconduct.

 

I was encouraged by this positional power I had, to influence whether or not officers used excessive force and decided that now was the time to take some action against it. I started speaking to officers at pre-shift roll call meetings on subjects such as respect and ethical behavior. Eventually, I organized department-wide workshops on diversity, ethics, and leadership. At a 16-hour workshop on diversity in 1993, I used the newly opened Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles for a 4-hour field trip. The Museum uses the Holocaust as an example of what can happen when people are intolerant and disrespectful of people who are different from them and how being a bystander only encourages evil acts.

 

After my diversity workshop was finished, I remained at the Museum as a volunteer and helped them create a statewide program for all police officers. This is now called Tools for Tolerance for Law Enforcement. It is funded by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and is one of the largest police training programs in California. 30 years later I still work there as a facilitator.

 

Maybe it’s wishful thinking or a rationalizing of my decision to be a bystander many years ago, but I would like to think that my almost 40 years of working with police officers to be more tolerant has made a difference. And I don’t think that would have been possible if I had chosen to do the right thing and violate the unofficial loyalty rule I was taught as a new police officer. I’m pretty sure I would have been terminated and forgotten.


Epilogue


A few years ago a friend told me about a new psychological field, Moral Injury, that was introduced in the 1990s. After researching this field, I began to realize that I had suffered a moral injury from all those years of being a bystander to police corruption. This injury is common among soldiers and police officers (Williamson, et al. 2018).

 

Moral injury is when one feels they have violated their conscience or moral compass when they take part in, witness, or fail to prevent an act that disobeys their own moral values or personal principles. The effects of moral injury can include feelings of guilt, shame, anger, sadness, anxiety, and disgust; beliefs about being bad, damaged, or unworthy; self-handicapping behaviors; loss of faith in people and avoidance of intimacy; and loss of religious faith; or loss of faith in humanity or a just world (Papadopoulos 2020).

 

I also realized that by serendipity or dumb luck, I had intuitively done something that gave my life a new purpose and meaning, and also allowed me to begin to heal from the moral injury I had suffered—I began working at the Museum of Tolerance. I didn’t realize it then, but I now realize that my meaning or purpose in life is to help improve law enforcement effectiveness through dialogue with police officers.

 

Peter Drucker, a management consultant known as the father of modern management, besides advising corporations, also advised people to manage themselves. In his essay, Managing Oneself (1999), Drucker said that people now stay in the workforce for 50 or more years and that people find the same occupation boring after 30 or 40 years. He proposed that people need a second career in order to stay engaged and active. He felt that workers should develop expertise in an area other than their primary occupation while they are still working in their first career. If they do this, they will be ready for a second meaningful and worthwhile career when the time comes. Drucker also talked about the importance of purpose in life and in business.

 

In an essay titled, How Will You Measure Your Life?, Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christiansen says, “Knowledge on the purpose of your life…is the single most important thing to learn. If a student doesn’t figure it out they will just sail off without a rudder and get buffeted in the very rough seas of life.” And, “Had I spent an hour each day learning the latest techniques of autocorrelation in regression analysis, I would have badly misspent my life. I apply the tools of econometrics a few times a year, but I apply my knowledge of the purpose of my life every day. It’s the single most useful thing I’ve ever learned.” (Christiansen 2010 p.5).

 

In my case, I started developing expertise in diversity, equity and inclusion in 1992 when I developed a 16-hour diversity workshop. I then helped the Museum of Tolerance develop a program to teach tolerance to police officers and stayed at the Museum as a volunteer to facilitate this program. By the time I was ready to retire from the police department, I had much expertise in facilitating diversity, equity, and inclusion workshops and made a smooth transition from the police department to the Museum of Tolerance.

 

Drucker was absolutely right about developing a new expertise and starting a second career. It helped me to stay engaged, active, and relevant after retirement and also helped me to start to heal from my moral injury of being a bystander fifty years ago.

 


References

 

Christiansen, Clayton M. 2010 How Will You Measure Your Life? HBRs 10 Must Reads On Managing Yourself Harvard Business School Publications

 

Drucker, Peter F. 2008, Managing Oneself, Harvard Business School Publications

 

Papadopoulos, Renos K. 2020, Moral Injury and Beyond: Understanding Human Anguish and Healing Traumatic Wounds, Routlege

 

Williamson, Victoria; Stevenlink, Sharon; Greenburg, Neil 2018, Occupational Moral Injury and Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis British Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 212 Iss. 6

The Drucker Difference

By William A. Cohen, Ph.D. • 02 May, 2024
The Executive PhD program that Peter Drucker, “the Father of Modern Management,” and his dean, Paul Albrecht, developed at Claremont Graduate University in 1975 was the first accredited PhD intended for future top executives. According to Albrecht, this PhD taught the “Drucker Difference” for those “with top management potential.” It was and is expensive. There were only ten students in the first cohort, and only one of the ten completed the program. This individual eventually rose to the rank of major general in the U.S. Air Force, and, after retirement, founded The California Institute of Advanced Management with Minglo Shao, a Chinese billionaire who had earlier founded Drucker Academies across China. Others graduated in later cohorts and became senior corporate executives, presidents of colleges and universities, and entrepreneurs. Was Drucker Really Different? Most professors built their careers on conventional research and publication in academic journals. Drucker didn’t. His numerous articles were written for practitioners, not primarily researchers. They appeared in the Harvard Business Review, the Wall Street Journal and other journals read primarily by practitioners. In June 2004, Harvard Business Review honored Drucker with his seventh McKinsey Award for his article, "What Makes an Effective Executive. Drucker’s 39 books were written for practitioners as well. They won and received numerous accolades. Yet Drucker did not write synthetic research typical in academia, where one or more hypotheses based on multiple inputs are tested for significant differences. Drucker used a different research model. He declared, “corporations are my laboratories.” His conclusions from observation are the basis of the Drucker Difference. They were explained first by Einstein who used the method and explained it in an article in the London Times. Drucker’s Research Model Asked in class where he got his vast knowledge and extensive experience to help organizations in so many different industries, Drucker answered: “I have no vast knowledge nor extensive experience on any specific topic. I have only ignorance and lack of experience. Therefore, all I can do is to ask questions. Clients have the knowledge and experience which I lack; they are the real experts on the topics they hire me for.” He then gave examples of his questions, beginning with “What business are you in?” “Who is your customer” “What does your customer value? “What are your objectives” and “What is your plan for getting those results?” Other Questions General Electric’s former CEO Jack Welch, who retired with the largest retirement package ever awarded, significantly increased GE’s wealth. He credited Drucker’s consulting. Welch said that Drucker had asked him two questions: “If you have a choice, which GE businesses would you discard?” and “If this is true, what are you going to do about it?” Welch explained that he made the decision to sell or liquidate even profitable GE businesses, which were not number one or two in their markets and were unlikely to attain these positions. He used the funds to invest in businesses with better potential. Over nine years this increased GE’s wealth by 4000 percent. This became known as Drucker’s Abandonment Theory. Another former client explained: “Drucker got us thinking through our problems and applying our own knowledge and experience in a way we had never considered previously. This was amazingly effective, and we found solutions to our problems with his guidance that we had overlooked.” Drucker was Different Here was an expert who not only did not claim special talents but rejected the title “guru.” Drucker made no claim as being an extraordinary management researcher. When not at the university, Drucker used his home as his office. He practiced without a staff or even a secretary. He even answered his own phone. He did not claim any special expertise or experience. Yet he reportedly received as much as $10,000 for a few hours work. Few complained. He taught a simple procedure to students. It began with defining the problem and determining the relevant factors including facts, estimates, speculations, assumptions, time available and financial limitations. Only then did he advise clients to identify, discuss, compare, and analyze possible solutions. Strategy, not Formulae Drucker refused to develop strategy by formula. There was no BCG nor GE/McKinsey chart with cash cows or dogs. He believed that each situation was so unique, that a manager must know as much as possible to determine strategy. There was no common element of identical importance for all situations. What was decisive and important in one situation might be totally unimportant in another. Decisive elements might not even be quantitative or directly associated with profit. While profitability was deemed as necessary to a business as oxygen to breathing, he said that profit maximization was not, and noted that transistor radios were developed in the U.S., but lost the market to the Japanese because American developers tried to maximize profit. Drucker described management as a liberal art and suggested that liberal arts should be employed in developing strategies and management decisions. He noted economics, ethics, history, humanities, philosophy, social science, physical sciences, and psychology, as all being useful in a variety of managerial and business situations. He noted that in addition to external knowledge, self-knowledge of the organization and its people and available resources might be of even greater importance. Drucker also wrote that 50% of the outcome of any project was due to its leadership. Once invited by an organization to explain the latest leadership techniques, he rejected the opportunity with the explanation that the latest techniques were known to the ancients and recommended that his inquirer read “the first systematic book on leadership and still the best” which had been written 2000 years earlier by Xenophon, an ancient Grecian general and author. Drucker and Research Most controversial was Drucker’s approach to research, yet it was also employed by Einstein who’d been a researcher in theoretical physics. In the single year, 1905, Einstein produced four papers, winning the Nobel Prize for theoretical physics. All four were written a year after earning his PhD at the University of Zurich while he was working at the only job he could obtain: as Assistant Patent Examiner in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. Like Drucker, he had no conventional laboratory or computers. The Theory of Relativity Einstein himself described the development of one of his most famous theories, the Theory of Relativity. He imagined himself traveling along side of a moving beam of light. Einstein may have provided Drucker with ideas of research. Drucker observed people in companies in action as Einstein had observed his imaginary beam of light. He used analysis and development of what he observed to develop his theories of management. Einstein Reveals His Research Methodology Einstein described his research methodology in an article in the London Times in 1919, discussing what he called his “Theories of Principle.” Einstein wrote “these theories employ the analytical, not the synthetic method of research. Their starting-point and foundation are not hypothetical components, but empirically observed general properties of phenomena, principles from which mathematical formulae are deduced of such a kind that they apply to every case which presents itself.” Synthetic research is what most use in research. It starts with the known and proceeds to the unknown, beginning with a hypothesis or hypotheses. It then tests these hypotheses by proving or disproving each usually by examination of a sufficient number of examples and testing mathematically for significant differences. Einstein’s analytical research starts with the unknown and proceeds to the known. There is no hypothesis. One definition of analytical research is “a specific type of research that involves critical thinking skills and the evaluation of facts and information relative to the research being conducted.” This analytical process is how Drucker arrived at his theories and is part of the Drucker difference. This research approach comes from a simple model: 1. Observation, either real or even imagined 2. Analysis of the observation or imagination 3. Construction of theory based on this analysis A sampling of Drucker’s theories derived analytically include: · That marketing and selling are not the same. · Moreover, selling is not a subset of marketing and marketing and selling could be adversarial. Since, if the product or strategy chosen by the company were better, with the same effort and ability, the same salesmen might sell more product with less effort. · What everyone knows (or think they know) is usually wrong. This short statement was the one most uttered by Drucker in the classroom. · Social Responsibility and Ethics are part of good leadership. · Society demands that an organization be profitable, but not the maximum profit attainable. · Many managerial decisions are made from the gut, and these may be optimal despite complex analyses. · Managers must ultimately make decisions from the gut.  What Drucker taught, worked, and the “Drucker Difference” produced many successful leaders using “Drucker Difference” skills. While other factors influence results and other research methods are still valuable, researchers using primary analytical research including Einstein confirm the value of the “Drucker Difference” confirming Drucker’s conclusion that Management is a Liberal Art.

Schumpeter, Drucker, and Entrepreneurship

By Byron Ramirez, Ph.D. • 27 Apr, 2024
The formal study of entrepreneurship begins with the works of Richard Cantillon and Adam Smith in the 18th century. Cantillon's (1755) Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général is considered by many an important early treatise on enterprise economics and entrepreneurship. In this work, Cantillon provides his conception of the entrepreneur as a risk-bearer - someone whose acceptance of risk allows them to pursue entrepreneurial activities. Two decades later, Adam Smith in his (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations explains that nations grow wealthy through changes in the division of labor. Smith describes how human actions lead to changes in the division of labor, economic outcomes, and subsequent new venture formation. Smith suggested that division of labor (implicitly entrepreneurship) was the driver of wealth in society. The French economist, Jean-Baptiste Say in his (1803) Traité d'économie politique ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et se composent les richesses posits that the entrepreneur, who he also refers to as the ‘undertaker’, is someone who takes upon himself the immediate responsibility, risk, and conduct of a concern of industry, whether upon his own or on borrowed capital. Say argued: “The entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield” (Say 1803). By pursuing areas of greater yield, Say argues, the entrepreneur is effectively taking on greater risk. Accordingly, the entrepreneur is also receiving a higher return on investment. Although entrepreneurial activities continued for two hundred years, the study of entrepreneurship remained largely ignored by academics until the early 20 th century. An economist by the name of Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s,and other Austrian economists such as Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich von Hayek begun to increasingly discuss entrepreneurship in their works. Schumpeter would argue that the innovation and technological change of a nation stem from the efforts of entrepreneurs. Schumpeter even devised the term Unternehmergeist , German for entrepreneur-spirit. Schumpeter suggested in his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , that “creative destruction” represents the disruptive process of transformation that accompanies innovation. Moreover, he argued that the innovative entry by entrepreneurs into a market was the disruptive force that sustained economic growth. Schumpeter contended that entrepreneurship drives economic growth by disrupting existing industries and creating new ones. Thereupon, the entrepreneur challenges the status quo, leading to the replacement of older technologies, businesses, and economic models with new, more efficient ones. Schumpeter maintained that entrepreneurship is a dynamic force of change which drives progress and societal advancement. Ergo, as agents of change, entrepreneurs introduce new products, services, and market structures that generate economic growth and influence society. Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurship involves introducing new and different combinations of resources, technologies, and organizational methods that create value. Yet, he emphasized the importance of having an entrepreneurial spirit and mindset in fostering economic dynamism. He believed that entrepreneurship is supported by a mindset which is characterized by initiative, ingenuity, and a yearning to challenge the status quo. A few decades later, Peter F. Drucker would also discuss entrepreneurship in his writings. In his 1985 book titled: “ Innovation and Entrepreneurship ”, Drucker states: “Entrepreneurship rests on a theory of economy and society. The theory sees change as normal and indeed as healthy. And it sees the major task in society – and especially in the economy – as doing something different rather than doing better what is already being done” (Drucker, 1985, p. 26). Drucker opined that entrepreneurs introduce changing, newer ways of doing things, and hence fulfill an important role in the market, economy, and society. By addressing needs, solving problems, and offering innovative solutions, entrepreneurs contribute to economic growth and development. In his Innovation and Entrepreneurship , Drucker also dissects the practice of entrepreneurship, highlighting the importance of establishing systematic, organized, and purposeful management. He describes entrepreneurship as “not natural”, nor “creative”. Instead, Drucker argues that entrepreneurship is work. And entrepreneurship must be consciously driven for, thereby it requires effort. Drucker explains that entrepreneurial management requires policies and practices that support four key areas: (1) fostering an entrepreneurial climate – the organization must be receptive to innovation and be willing to perceive change as an opportunity rather than a threat; (2) developing systematic measurement of performance and learning to improve performance; (3) adapting organizational structure – adjusting staffing, managing, compensation, incentives, and rewards; and (4) recognizing that trying to become “entrepreneurial” without changing basic policies and practices that support those efforts, could lead to entrepreneurial failure. Drucker believed that entrepreneurs are constantly seeking opportunities for innovation and change. Hence, they have a keen ability to recognize market needs and identify existing inefficiencies. He also believed that entrepreneurs have the courage to step outside of traditional boundaries and challenge the status quo. Yet, Drucker emphasized the importance of taking disciplined initiative in entrepreneurship. Without consistency, discipline, and initiative, the entrepreneur cannot develop new products, services, or solutions that address societal challenges. Drucker highlighted the criticality of results-oriented thinking and of measuring performance. He opined that entrepreneurs must constantly seek ways to improve, and that continuous learning is essential to evolve and deliver value. Hence, entrepreneurs are lifelong learners who are adaptable and resilient, able to pivot and adjust their approaches and strategies in response to varying market conditions and unanticipated challenges. Through their works, Joseph Schumpeter and Peter Drucker have influenced our perspective of entrepreneurship, and the way entrepreneurship is practiced. Schumpeter and Drucker possessed some similar views on who entrepreneurs are, and what they do. Perhaps, one of the key differences between Schumpeter and Drucker, is that the former considered that “creativity” contributes to and supports entrepreneurship, while the latter argued that entrepreneurship is not about creativity, but rather work and effort. Notwithstanding this notable difference, both Schumpeter and Drucker envisioned the entrepreneur as an agent of change, someone who is willing and able to change the way things are done, challenging the status quo, and delivering value to society. As such, entrepreneurs do not solely create new products or services, they have the ability to profoundly impact society. References Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. INEd. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper Business. Say, J. B. (1846). Traité d'économie politique: ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et seconsomment les richesses (Vol. 9). O. Zeller. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942), Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Unwin. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.

Intersecting the Philosophy of Management as a Liberal Art with the Insights of Dan Solin

By Robert Kirkland, Ph.D. • 27 Apr, 2024
For over a decade, Dan Solin's wisdom has shaped my understanding of management philosophy profoundly. Dan Solin, celebrated for his bestselling 'Smartest' series on investing and his widely read work 'The Smartest Sales Book You'll Ever Read' and 'Ask: How to Relate to Anyone', connects with readers weekly through his blog on Advisor Perspectives, drawing in a devoted audience. His background as a securities attorney, along with his academic path through Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, underscores his expertise. I've personally drawn a great deal from Solin's focus on the human side of business — it's redefined how I see leadership and the way we connect with others. He champions the idea that it's not just what we say but how we listen and empathize that forges strong relationships and drives successful enterprises. Solin's approach echoes the human-centric principles of Management as a Liberal Art (MLA), a concept promoted by Peter Drucker that suggests management is more art than science, calling for a profound engagement with personal relationships. I am convinced that merging Solin's insights with the MLA philosophy can guide us toward more effective, reflective, and compassionate management methods. In the article that follows, I'll delve into how Solin's writings harmonize with MLA's values. Emphasizing Human Interactions and Development Both Drucker and Solin recognize the significance of human development and interactions within organizations. In Solin's work, the recurring theme is the emphasis on understanding and empathizing with others rather than simply imposing one's own viewpoints. A hallmark of Solin's philosophy is the power of asking questions. Moreover, Solin advises managers to guide change with empathy and understanding, acknowledging the impact on individuals. This method aligns with MLA's view of management as an art that requires practice, reflection, and the pursuit of knowledge. By asking questions, managers can elicit deeper insights and foster a culture of curiosity and continuous learning, which is at the core of MLA. Managing Change and Leading by Example Dan Solin's forward-thinking approaches, especially his pioneering use of artificial intelligence for small businesses and financial advisors, aligns well with the ethos of Management as a Liberal Art (MLA). Solin offers practical, actionable advice, making complex technology approachable for his readers. Similarly, MLA, as conceptualized by Peter Drucker, stresses the importance of anticipating and navigating change — a skill ever so crucial in today's dynamic business landscape. Solin’s writing emphasizes the practical application of knowledge, resonating with Drucker's belief that true wisdom in management emerges from an integrated understanding of our experiences, leading with both discernment and insight. Transdisciplinary Perspective and Holistic Understanding Solin’s work on avoiding the heuristics trap and naïve realism echoes MLA's transdisciplinary perspective. Drucker believed that a manager should not rely solely on a single framework or heuristic but should integrate knowledge from various disciplines. Drucker's notion that management is both a liberal art and a practice suggests that effective managers blend empathy and analysis to make well-rounded decisions. Solin's advocacy for a broad-based approach to understanding others reinforces this principle, highlighting the importance of a holistic understanding in management. Encouraging Self-Reflection and Growth MLA posits that self-reflection and personal growth are central to effective management. Solin’s writings often touch on the benefits of self-awareness and the pursuit of personal development, paralleling the MLA belief in the necessity of continuous learning and the cultivation of self-knowledge for managers. Solin's reflections on the impact of our actions and advice demonstrate an acute awareness of ethical responsibility—a key component of MLA. Solin emphasizes that financial advisors (as well as managers) should be cognizant of how their interactions affect their clients, teams, and the larger community, advocating for responsible action and ethical management in line with MLA’s ethos. Conclusion Dan Solin's writings provide a rich resource of present practical, everyday applications of the broader and more philosophical principles of Management as a Liberal Art. His focus on empathetic communication, ethical decision-making, and continuous personal and professional growth offers a nuanced take on the MLA framework, exemplifying how management is not just a business function but a holistic and humane pursuit. Solin's work and Drucker’s MLA together provide a roadmap for managers who aspire to lead not only with competence but with wisdom, empathy, and a deep understanding of the multifaceted human experience within organizations. They teach us that to manage effectively is to navigate the delicate balance of advancing organizational goals while fostering an environment where individuals can pursue meaningful development and contribute to the larger societal good. Selected Dan Solin Books Ask: How to Relate to Anyone. Silvercloud Publishing LLC, 2020 The Smartest Sales Book You'll Ever Read: The Truth about Successful Selling. SilverCloud Publishing, 2013
Show More
Share by: