MLA Research Institute (MLARI)

I had lunch with a friend today, and the conversation sparked the content for this month’s newsletter piece. My friend, who tends to be quite pessimistic about the state of national affairs, advanced the argument that the framers of the Constitution of the United States could not possibly have anticipated the degree to which the two-party system would break down in the face of obstructionism, ill will, and the pursuit of personal gain over the preservation of the common good. Her comments motivated me to write this piece, which I think is appropriately timed for the month of our nation’s celebration of independence. After the American Revolution, the newly independent coalition of former colonies formed a loose confederation. In 1777, the former British colonies organized under the Articles of Confederation, which signaled a strong bond among the 13 sovereign states. The idea was that each state would have its own interests, government, and sovereignty – and be beholden to no higher interest or authority. Given the recent experience with Britain, it is understandable that the former colonies would abhor any kind of central control or identity. By the 1780s, it was clear that this loose confederation of states was ineffective. Unstable economic conditions related to the Revolutionary War impacted some regions more than others, and a lack of coordinated response to alleviate problems led to local rebellion and unrest. The absence of a central government prevented any meaningful counter to uprisings, such as Shays’ Rebellion. Citizens in western Massachusetts took up arms against the government to protest taxes levied to pay for Revolutionary War debt. Other such armed conflicts showed the need for a more centralized way of dealing with problems. In 1787, delegates met in Philadelphia to develop a constitution. This led to a series of arguments about the role of centralized government and the rights of states. The delegates had widely disparate ideas about what should be included in the Constitution. Three individuals who played an important role in the debates on the Constitution were John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. These three men wrote and circulated a series of essays now known as The Federalist Papers . Jay, Madison, and Hamilton carefully articulated arguments for a constitution and central government, and addressed the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, those who opposed the erosion of state sovereignty and the concentration of power in the hands of a select few. One of the major concerns was the topic of factions. We might be tempted to call factions political parties today, but the definition in the 1700s was more complicated. Factions were groups of people or special interests (whether in the minority or the majority) that represented ideas not in support of the common good (the well-being of larger society). In Madison’s words, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Madison and others worried that factions would divide the country, fracturing the fragile alliances that united the sovereign states. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned that factions presented a danger to society. Madison argued that factions were an innate part of society due to the nature of humankind. In Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison advances the argument that a larger, more diverse republic can curb the evils of factions. A plethora of different interests, as opposed to a society of fewer, more similar interests, would prevent any one special interest from dominating. It would also prevent what Madison referred to as the “tyranny of the majority”, where dissenting opinions are quashed because of a large, vocal majority. A larger, representative government would prevent a violent revolution from spreading from one region to the entire confederation of states: “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.” The levers of representative government were designed to keep factions in check. The Bill of Rights spells out limits of federal powers and protects the rights of individuals. The Constitution makes it difficult to amend the document, preventing a simple majority from instituting significant changes. The three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) provide checks and balances to curb abuses of power. We can argue as to the effectiveness of various aspects of the structure we have inherited (the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, etc.) but the fact of the matter remains that it is difficult for an inflamed faction to actuate meaningful change given the guard rails of the system. Yes, social media and other factors make the inflamed factions much more vocal and influential in political discourse (“the base” of each party). But the frustration with the lack of legislative action (and this cry occurs regardless of who is in power) is evidence of a system that is designed to slow down those intent on advancing an agenda against the will of the people. It also means that the agenda that advances the will of the people is slowed as well. Slow is built into the system inherently as a part of the guardrail against factions. The idea of a federal government thus was a way to curb darker tendencies that existed within humankind. If human beings were naturally inclined towards division and pursuing their own interests, federalism served as a check on that inclination, preventing a minority from wreaking havoc in the republic and preventing the majority from silencing voices of disagreement. After Shays’ Rebellion and other similar events, political leaders questioned the nature of humankind, particularly with respect to morality. Before the uprising in Massachusetts, George Washington wrote that “we have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation.” In Federalist Paper Number 51, Madison warns about the need to thwart the darker aspects of human nature, notably ambition: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interests of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. Bu what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” My friend’s lunchtime comments reminded me of these Federalist debates on the Constitution, most notably the discussions of human nature, factions, and the taint of ambition. The founders certainly did NOT envision a system without obstructionism, ill will, or the pursuit of personal gain over the preservation of the common good. Granted, our society is nothing like that they could have imagined. But in terms of human nature and political ambition, problems of governance, and polarization/division, I think at least a few of the framers had an inkling of what might come to be. Our job is to remember that there is such a thing as the common good. Drucker reminds us of this constantly in his work, and worried that institutions would lose sight of the need to balance their individual, specialized focus on mission and goal with the larger needs of society. I leave you with this quote from Drucker, one of my favorites: “In our society of pluralistic institutions, each institution must focus on its narrow mission if it is to achieve results and meet the minimum test of social responsibility. But then, who looks out for the common good? The answer is no one unless executives of society’s institutions take on a second responsibility that looks beyond the borders of their institution to the common good.” 

This month, I’d like to share my reflections on the value of artistic training in terms of its contributions to management and leadership ability.

The central theory of the fascist concept of Heroic Man is the self-justification of personal sacrifice – one of the oldest and most deeply-rooted ritual concepts of mankind, which has always been used to placate or to banish demonic forces…Only through the sublimation of a senseless immolation into a magical offering can the very elements of irrational warfare be rationalized again. The isolation of the individual in machine war, the anonymity of his sacrifice, and the blind arbitrary rule of fate appear as ends in themselves in the self-justification of individual sacrifice. It is a common and stupid mistake to look at this exaltation of sacrifice in totalitarianism as mere hypocrisy, self-deception, or a propaganda stunt. It grew out of deepest despair. Just as nihilism in the Russia of 1880 attracted the noblest and bravest of the young people, so in Germany and Italy it was the best, not the worst, representatives of the postwar generation who refused to compromise with a world that had no genuine values worth dying for and no valid creed worth living for. – Peter Drucker, The End of Economic Man , pp. 191-192. Recent events have caused me to revisit MLARI’s Vision Statement, which we revised a little less than a year ago. Our Vision is: A functioning society of institutions that ethically respects all of its constituencies and resists totalitarianism and autocracy in order to realize individual dignity. The events taking place in Ukraine give us all pause as we consider the fragility of democracy and the brazenness of authoritarian regimes bent on asserting raw power in any form. I have resisted writing about the events in Ukraine for a number of reasons, but I feel compelled to address them from the perspective of Peter Drucker’s experience with and remarks about totalitarianism. I am by no means an expert in international relations, Russia, the former Soviet Union, or any other political aspect of current events. However, I would like to present Drucker’s early observations of authoritarian societies and show how we can learn from them. Drucker’s theory of management is based on his concept of a Functioning Society of Institutions. Like many who witnessed the rise of totalitarianism in the 1930s, Drucker sought an explanation for why this form of governance was so appealing to people. What conditions made the rise of the Nazis possible, and how could such an event be prevented from ever happening again? Drucker published his book, The End of Economic Man in 1939. In this book, he developed his own explanation for totalitarianism and its appeal. Drucker’s main thesis in The End of Economic Man is that the traditional institutions of European society had broken down, and so had people’s belief in the systems that held society together. Out of this analysis, Drucker developed his concept of a Functioning Society of Institutions. How can the institutions of a society persist, so that there isn’t such a complete breakdown again? Where can people find status and function in society? What institutions or organizations can provide meaning to existence? What could help to prevent the alienation that drove the rise of totalitarianism in the 1920s and 1930s? When Drucker came to the United States, he looked around and saw, with the rapid growth of industrial capitalism, the increasing prominence of the corporation, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Consequently, his subsequent works on industrial capitalism ( The Future of Industrial Man and his analysis of General Motors, The Concept of the Corporation ) analyzed the nature of industrial organizations and how they could provide status and meaning for those employed there. As a result, Drucker’s early work on management focused on how to make corporate organizations functioning institutions that were not just economic entities but also social ones. But key to understanding Drucker’s analysis of totalitarianism is also his early critique of economic systems – both capitalism and Marxism. The title of Drucker’s book, The End of Economic Man , telegraphs his argument. The conception of humans (man) as beings ruled by economic decisions results in inherent contradictions with the belief in equality. Economic freedom, says Drucker, does not result in human equality; in fact, it results in quite the opposite: “Economic progress does not bring equality, not even the formal equality of ‘equal opportunity.’ It brings instead the new and extremely rigid unequal classes…” (p. 39). Marxism also fails to bring about its promise of equality. As a result, the two primary creeds of “Economic Man” (capitalism and Marxism) made no sense to early 20th century Europeans: “The class society of the capitalist reality is irreconcilable with the capitalist ideology, which therefore ceases to make sense. The Marxist class war, on the other hand, while it recognizes and explains the actual reality, ceases to have any meaning because it leads nowhere. Both creeds and orders failed because their concept of the automatic consequences of the exercise of economic freedom by the individual was false” (pp. 44-45). To fill the void of the end of Economic Man, totalitarianism proffers Heroic Man as a solution to hopelessness and despair. The model of self-sacrifice to a cause or great leader attracts those who believe society holds no “genuine values worth dying for and no valid creed worth living for.” Drucker asks us to take this aspect of totalitarianism very seriously, remarking that the celebration of self-sacrifice and subordination of the individual to society had a history in Europe, notably in the nihilism movement in late 19th-century Russia. Nihilism was a movement that began among well-educated elites in the mid-1800s. Rather than upholding traditional cultural values and the optimism of the early 19th century, these intellectuals instead embraced a rebellion against societal norms and advocated for revolutionary change and destruction of established institutions (class and family structures, church and state). As Drucker notes in The End of Economic Man , many of those attracted to nihilism were from the upper ranks and nobility of society. His point is that authoritarian ideals are not just supported by those at the bottom tier of society. This discussion illustrates the importance of one’s worldview, and the role it plays in the idea of Management as a Liberal Art. The notion of ‘worldview’ can seem quite esoteric and removed to many people, but Drucker’s analysis of totalitarianism sheds light on how important it is to not just one’s personal philosophy of life, but also to entire systems of governance. Drucker’s solution to the end of Economic Man (and the ultimate end of Heroic Man) was a “new, positive noneconomic concept of Free and Equal Man” (p. 268). But in Putin’s Russia, we can see elements of the Heroic Man worldview at work. When Putin was elected to a second term as President in 2004 with some 70 percent of the vote, the Russian economy benefitted from a sharp rise in oil prices, translating into a higher standard of living for Russians. After being prevented from running again in 2008 because of term limits at the time, Putin came back in as President in 2012. However, the Russian economy was much weaker than it was during his earlier two terms. Thus, rather than campaign by citing a strong Russian economy, Putin turned to Russian nationalism and military strength to garner support. The annexation of Crimea (part of Ukraine) in 2014 sharply bolstered his approval ratings, as Putin positioned the move as being protective of the freedom and self-determination of ethnic Russians (although fewer than half of the Crimean population voted to join the Russian Federation). It is also well-remembered that Putin was no champion of the Chechnyan separatists’ desire for self-determination; his brutal crack down on that ethnic group’s rebellion in 1999 as Prime Minister garnered him high marks with the Russian population. This casting of himself as the protector of “the motherland” and the one to restore Russians to the fold holds much appeal to a population where wealth is held and controlled by oligarchs. As the Russian economy is heavily impacted by the price of oil, economic performance is volatile; the nation’s GDP suffered enormously during the COVID pandemic. Putin’s promise of a strong Russian national and cultural identity plays a large role in his public speeches. In his February 24, 2022 speech on the Ukrainian invasion, Putin refers to the West’s attempts to “destroy our [Russia’s] traditional values” and frames his “special operations” as a program to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine. In Putin’s version of history, Ukraine must be liberated from a “junta” that is holding Russians hostage there. By positioning Russians as the historical victims at the hands of Western aggression (including the Nazis), Putin sets the stage for the Russian people to be ready to sacrifice in the name of national identity: “..it is our strength and our readiness to fight that are the bedrock of independence and sovereignty and provide the necessary foundation for building a reliable future for your home, your family, and your Motherland.” Putin’s approval rating has soared since the Ukrainian invasion, near 80 percent as of April 2022. Iron-clad control of media and information dissemination within Russia, as well as a vast web of social media bots and trolls, help to shape this view of Russians as protecting their territory, national identity, and culture. In a country where Economic Man has clearly failed, and where there is little else to shore up hope and stave off despair, Putin uses the playbook of Heroic Man, calling on personal sacrifice for the greater good of the Motherland. Then the “very elements of irrational warfare” can become perfectly rational. In all of this horror unfolding, I find a little comfort in Drucker’s assessment of the ultimate demise of Heroic Man as a worldview. The system requires the constant identification of enemies, of boogeymen who threaten the society, requiring self-sacrifice on an increasing scale. Drucker says that, because fascism cannot create a functioning society, it must justify itself through the persecution of enemies: “Perpetual unrelenting warfare against them becomes a holy task which not only permits but demands brutality, violence, and deception” (p. 197). Putin’s references to Nazis in Ukraine (a nod to the fact that some Ukrainians did aid the Germans during their occupation of Soviet Ukraine) provide this kind of justification for the Russian population. Putin similarly invoked NATO as a threat to Russian safety, national identity, and power. Yet, such a model of Heroic Man, of sacrifice to the holy cause, is unsustainable. A society based completely on noneconomic factors, mainly military sacrifice, cannot be sustainable: “This inevitable failure to base a society on the anarchic concept of Heroic Man vitiates irreparably the entire performance of totalitarian fascism. It renders impossible the successful solution of class war, as it frustrates its replacement by the new social noneconomic harmony of the nation in arms” (p. 195). If Drucker is to be understood, Heroic Man may resurface when conditions are ripe, but that worldview cannot be sustained. Ultimately, Russia (and other totalitarian regimes) must find another path. I don’t know. Some pundits are saying that Ukraine spells the end for Putin’s reign. Yet the popularity of far-right populist leaders such as Marie Le Pen in France and Viktor Orban in Hungary indicate that there is an appetite for “strong” leadership that calls for a Heroic Man worldview. In societies where there has been a breakdown or perceived loss of “genuine values” or a “valid creed”, how can a functioning society exist? How can such societies avoid a strain of nihilism or similar self-destructive philosophy? I have concerns about this in the United States as well. The pandemic did not bring us together under an umbrella of social cohesion fighting a common enemy (the virus). Instead, it resulted in politicization of science, where public health policies (masks, social distancing, and vaccinations) became fodder for arguments about freedom. The perceived loss of status and function that fueled the populist movements of the Tea Party and Donald Trump have only been exacerbated by the economic disruptions of the pandemic, which have exposed longstanding wealth inequality and cultural differences between urban and rural Americans. Many Americans no longer trust basic institutions of society (journalism, elections, the Supreme Court). A loss of a “valid creed” or “genuine values” has led people to sacrifice themselves for nonsense (Qanon, the January 6th insurrection based on a lie, etc.). The sources of despair today do not just lie in inflation. They are deep seated and long in the making. As the Western world unites around Ukraine against Russian aggression, perhaps we can find common ground in an identity that is not necessarily rooted in Economic identity, nor Heroic identity, but Drucker’s ideal of a new, noneconomic concept of “free and equal.” What would that look like? Like our Vision here at MLARI: A functioning society of institutions that ethically respects all of its constituencies and resists totalitarianism and autocracy in order to realize individual dignity. Citations: Aslund, Anders. “The Russian Economy in Health, Oil, and Economic Crisis.” Atlantic Council , May 27, 2020. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/long-take/the-russian-economy-in-health-oil-and-economic-crisis/ Friedman, Thomas. “Putin Had No Clue How Many of Us Would Be Watching.” The New York Times , April 3 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/opinion/ukraine-russia-wired.html Kendall-Taylor, Andrea and Frantz, Erica. “The Beginning of the End for Putin? Foreign Affairs , March 2, 2022. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2022-03-02/beginning-end-putin

I thought I’d give you a lighter piece this month. There is so much weighing all of us down, from the threat of global war, the lingering pandemic, inflation… So, rather than write about Peter Drucker’s lessons to be learned, I thought I would share lessons from another source. You probably don’t know this, but your Acting Research Director at MLARI is also an avid equestrian (which means I like to ride horses). I own two, a male and a mare (female). I came to this sport very late in life, as my mother was terrified of horses and wouldn’t let me near them. So I fell in love with these animals in my forties, and have never looked back. Horses have a lot to teach us about leadership, as others have noted (Rajfura, Tomasz, and Robert Karaszewski. "Horse Sense Leadership: What Can Leaders Learn from Horses?." Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership 5.1 (2018): 61-83; Kelly, Simon. "Horses for courses: Exploring the limits of leadership development through equine-assisted learning." Journal of Management Education 38.2 (2014): 216-233). It’s an interesting area of inquiry that, I think, relates intensely to MLA. I hope this piece piques your interest in things related to horses and leadership. These are my own thoughts independent of outside research: 1) Horses are prey animals. As large as they are, horses are preyed upon. Unlike dogs, who travel in packs and attack, horses move in herds, but for safety because they are food for predators (in the wild). This mentality is in their DNA. Think of them as giant rabbits. Any change in their environment means a threat. And you may not perceive the change that they see. The light changes when the seasons shift. We don’t see that, but they do. The subtle rustle of an animal in the bushes can set a horse off. All of these slight changes result in reactions, that may be small (an ear tilting) or dramatic (bolting to get out of there). Lesson: Change is scary . Drucker wrote about the need for balancing continuity and change, and that too much sudden change created disorientation and disruption. Change is part of life, but it needs to be managed and lead. Horses dislike any kind of change in their environment that can be perceived as a threat. Think about this when you are implementing new procedures, policies, ideas, or programs. Your idea is probably really great! But every person reacts differently to change. Some may embrace the change but need to process it (tilt the ear) while others might perceive a new policy or program as a threat (and decide to bolt). Think about each person on your team and how they might react to a change. Is it a new and interesting thing to explore? Or a scary plastic bag ghost that is chasing them? Watching horses deal with daily changes in their environment has helped me understand how to think about managing change for people. 2) Horses live in a herd. Horses do not like to be alone. They need company, preferably the company of another horse (although if they are bonded with a human, they need that person to be there, too). There is a pecking order to a herd. One horse is the Alpha lead horse (often a mare, but not always), and then the order follows from there. Depending on the size of the herd, it gets complicated and sometimes competitive. In my barn, we have four. The Alpha (my gelding) has always held his position. He actually likes being alone and doesn’t care when the other horses leave. The bottom horse has always held his position. He hates it when any of the other horses leave. However, the other two (my mare and the other gelding) have competed for the number two and three slot. The mare has won out and is now number two. Yet, she hates being alone the most! Lesson: Humans are social beings . Drucker expressed this over and over in his work. People need status and function. Do they attain this at work? Or do they need to get this somewhere else? We need each other; we are not just isolated beings operating independently. The pandemic reinforced this aspect of human nature exponentially, I think. And perhaps we have lost some of our social skills after two years of being apart. Who are the natural leaders on our team? Who works well in a group, and who prefers to be independent? What are the group dynamics of your team or organization? Horses work this out. It’s a good lesson to learn. 3) Horses prefer a quiet leader. A lot of trainers and horse people use force and aggression to deal with the animals. I don’t find this very effective, based on observation. Horses need a leader, but they want a leader who is assertive in a confident, quiet way. If a person walks up to a horse with a slouching body position, they are signaling weakness. But, if you walk up to a horse with a whip in your hand all the time, you are just a bully, and the horse will back away from you or, worse yet, take you on. Horses want to know that you know what you are doing, and that you won’t let them down. Trust is key. Why should a prey animal let you get on his or her back? Or tell it what to do, when it weighs 1200 pounds and you weigh a tenth of that? You can’t force a horse to do anything (unless you want to be horribly abusive). The horse has more muscle and strength than you can ever overcome. So how do you lead/manage that? Lesson: Trust and integrity are key to effective leadership . Drucker emphasized this over and over. Horses know when you are lying, and if you let them down, you destroy the relationship. If you tell a horse to do something that isn’t safe, that horse will not trust you again. It’s a big responsibility. Leadership is a big responsibility. It requires that you raise others up to be better, and to be the best example you can possibly be. The quiet, confident leader will always have better results than the bully or the authoritarian with the whip. What is your leadership style? Do you operate from a position of strength but also empathy and compassion? Do you give clear directions? How do you build consensus (get those 1200 pound animals to think it’s their idea to go along with the mission/vision)? In Drucker’s terms, what constitutes power in your relationships? A whip? A cookie? Or a relationship that involves communication? 4) Horses are intuitive and reactive. As prey animals, horses have to read their environment constantly to perceive potential threats. They are thus constantly on alert. One of the things horse owners need to do is to desensitize their animals to whatever environment they are in. A horse in the wild doesn’t have to deal with urban stressors. In my neighborhood, we have all kinds of scary things, like baby strollers, umbrellas that open and close, tree trimmers, plastic bags blowing in the wind, kids on scooters and bikes…you get the idea. All of the things that are normal to us are not normal to a horse. That tumbleweed that appeared on the trail? It might be a monster out to eat me! Horse reactions vary. Some will just look at a scary thing and give it a wide berth. Others will try to back away from it. Others will suddenly spin and run away from that scary paper bag. In short, they are highly unpredictable. No horse is immune to such incidents. That’s why it’s called a high-risk sport (I know…why do I do this???). Lesson: Life-Long Learning is Important . Horses need to be worked every day (a day off or two) to be in a good frame of mind and physical condition. So do we humans!!! The parallels between horses and humans continue to amaze me. Even old horses, like my 27 year-old Spencer, need mental and physical work. That keeps them from reacting to things that might be worrisome. People tend to get locked into routines as they get older. And, as Drucker noted, learning is going to be important to keep one’s job. Flexibility is crucial. Everyone who works is going to need to be willing to learn new skills, technology, and ways of viewing the world. Leaders will have to be ready to desensitize people unwilling for such change. The new software program is the equivalent of the tree trimmer to my horse. If we can present new material in terms of a life-long learning process rather than a scary threat, perhaps we can help current employees feel that they can grow within their positions. So, think like a horse, and lead your team forward happily, strongly, and with trust

Last month, I wrote about implementing MLA in organizations, particularly during times of change or even crisis. I discussed that different definitions of freedom might make it difficult to bring people together. As I said, people need status and function, according to Drucker. But status and function require people to have responsibility and to submit to legitimate authority. We can’t have a team if everyone does what they want without any direction in terms of the organizational mission. This month, I’d like to build on the challenges presented by this tension between the individual and the organization. In a 1992 article in Harvard Business Review , Drucker identified the challenges facing our society of organizations. Two of them were “the relationship between individual and organization and the responsibilities of each to the other” and “the tension between specialists with specialized knowledges and the organization’s need for these specialists to perform as a team (“The Society of Organizations”, 1992). As Drucker pointed out in much of his work, knowledge workers cannot be managed in the traditional sense. They cannot be told what to do, because those directing them likely do not have the specialized knowledge that is required to perform the necessary work. Drucker liked to use the symphony orchestra as a metaphor for organizing knowledge workers; the conductor has no idea how to play all of the instruments in an orchestra but guides the specialists to honor the score and the intent of the composer and the director’s interpretation of that score. But she can no more tell the cellist how to produce a certain tone than a team leader can tell a market research specialist how to design a survey. As such, an organization, says Drucker, has a single purpose. It must because it is simply a tool. This requires a crystal-clear mission: “The organization must be single-minded, or its members will become confused. They will follow their own specialty rather than apply it to the common task. They will each define ‘results’ in terms of their own specialty and impose its values on the organization. Only a focused and common mission will hold the organization together and enable it to produce. Without such a mission, the organization will soon lose credibility and consequently its ability to attract the very people it needs to perform” (“The Society of Organizations”, 1992). Therefore, the way to resolve the second tension Drucker identified is to have a clear mission that every specialized knowledge worker can understand and get on board with. This then gives knowledge workers the freedom and autonomy to direct their own work, but under the “score” of the mission as part of the “orchestral” team. But what of the first tension Drucker identifies – “the relationship between individual and organization and the responsibilities of each to the other”? Here, Drucker argues that this relationship is complicated and, in 1992, was a new phenomenon. The old term “employee” doesn’t really apply to these people. After all, knowledge workers are employed by organizations, but they don’t identify themselves as employees of an institution; they identify themselves by the knowledge they have and the specialized work they do. As a result, organizations must earn knowledge workers’ loyalty not through a paycheck, but by providing them with “exceptional opportunities for putting their knowledge to work”. Highly educated knowledge workers know that they own their means of production, so to speak, and that they can transport that knowledge to any organization that will provide them the opportunity to use it effectively and in an interesting, meaningful way. This presents a challenge for organizations seeking to attract and retain the best talent. Importantly, modern knowledge worker organizations are organizations of colleagues, associates, and equals. As Drucker says, “No one knowledge ranks higher than another; each is judged by its contribution to the common task rather than by any inherent superiority or inferiority. Therefore, the modern organization cannot be an organization of boss and subordinate relationship. It must be organized as a team” (1992). This is crucial to navigating the new world of individuals working in organizations. Work needs to be done in teams where expertise is recognized and valued. What kind of team is best for the given situation or mission? Is it the tennis doubles team, where a very small group of people adapts themselves to the personality, skills, strengths and weaknesses of the others? Or is it the soccer model, where individuals have fixed positions but the group is moving and responding to rapidly-changing circumstances? Or the orchestra model, where each member’s position remains the same even though the group mission (the score) may change? Drucker says that the decision of which kind of team to use is one of the riskiest decisions in any organization. A change in team strategy can be very disruptive, because it requires giving up old ways, habits, and perhaps relationships. But the only way for an organization to be productive is to have a team effort. This is easier said than done, because it may require giving up old leadership behaviors and old models of boss-subordinate relationships. How can we work together as a team, with leaders who are not necessarily fixed by position, to fulfill the mission? Drucker believed that knowledge workers still needed an organization in order to have status and function in society. But he clearly saw that this relationship was tricky and filled with tension – and that was before the explosion of technology and people’s ability to connect with others independently through the internet and social media. Drucker remarked that society didn’t really have a vocabulary word for the new knowledge worker who wasn’t really an employee; the term “self-employed” was the one he thought best fit the change occurring. Yet Drucker still believed that most knowledge workers required access to an organization in order to make a contribution. Today, that is not necessarily the case. Knowledge workers can access stakeholders through their own organizations that they themselves create. Technology allows people with knowledge to connect with others anywhere and collaborate on projects, create new products and services, and develop the infrastructure to deliver what they create. So, the organizations of today face additional challenges in terms of building “the relationship between individual and organization and the responsibilities of each to the other”. I think the key concept is responsibilities. Drucker’s entire idea of a functioning society rests on the recognition that we have responsibilities as free individuals. As we discussed last month, freedom isn’t the license to do whatever you want. It’s the burden that you bear when you have the freedom to exercise your free will and suffer the consequences. As we become more atomized as knowledge workers (particularly during the pandemic), we need to revisit our responsibilities to our collective goals and mission without losing our individual freedom to pursue our passions and dreams. I think the tension Drucker identified is increasing as we move towards a society that celebrates individuality over collective achievement. How can we come together as a team, yet still recognize the individual as a unique person? That was Drucker’s lifelong project, and we still wrestle with it. The clear mission statement helps an organization clarify activity. But when it comes to relationships between people working together? I think we still have a lot to work on, as Drucker signaled thirty years ago.

As the Director of Research at MLARI, I think a lot about not just what MLA is, but how is works in everyday life. I frequently hear from people that MLA is too complicated or is too philosophical. Other times, people tell me that MLA is simple: it’s just about people, or social responsibility, or good leadership. In other situations, I have people giving me examples of MLA that, frankly, have nothing to do with the concept. It’s very clear to me that there is a vast disconnect between a deep understanding of MLA as an idea and how to actually put it into action. So, I have some thoughts on how to bridge this gap. First of all, we have a lot of work to do to understand MLA and its complexity. That is really the only way we will get MLA done effectively. But, I’ve realized, in the short term, there are some ways we can begin to have conversations about how to implement MLA in organizations with respect to specific issues. I’d like to discuss the concept of freedom, and how it relates to implementing MLA in organizations. I did a podcast on this last month, so I hope you’ll listen to this for a deeper conversation about this topic. The meaning and definition of freedom have changed depending on the time, people doing the defining, and other contextual matters. As a result, today we have multiple definitions of freedom, resulting in competing views and values that can impact not just society but also organizations. Some people see freedom solely in terms of individual rights. Freedom is my right to do what I want, when I want, and how I want. And be who I want to be. This is a valid definition, but it presents challenges for organizations. How do we build a team when everyone has his/her/their own agenda? Drucker emphasized the need for balancing individual rights with the rights of society (or the organization, or some greater good). MLA’s emphasis on the human condition is not just about letting people do what they want or be who they want to be. Yes, people need status and function, according to Drucker. But status and function require people to have responsibility and to submit to legitimate authority. We can’t have a team if everyone does what they want without any direction in terms of the organizational mission. The key is to lead people to want to be part of the team and contribute their skills to the overall vision and mission. This is particularly important when it comes to knowledge workers, who can take their skills anywhere they choose, particularly in today’s job market. Similarly, leaders need to understand that they don’t lead by virtue of their position. There are anti-authoritarian people who bristle against any exertion of power in every organization. And power takes many forms. It’s often not overt; often it’s in the form of a great idea, plan, program, or change that didn’t involve the input of others. The plan might be brilliant; but, if presented as, “Here’s what we’re going to do, and it’s great” without buy-in from those affected, it is easily interpreted as a mandate. We’ve all seen how government mandates and public policy during this pandemic have met with incredible resistance. Think of how your great idea might be met with resistance if you present it as an obligation rather than a free choice. Yes, policies need to be implemented, and organizations are guided by external authorities, such as labor laws and accreditation requirements. Communicating the why of a change or program, not just the what , can help people be part of the process rather than feeling that they are out of the loop. Similarly, as Drucker said over and over, one cannot prevent change; one can only prepare for it and manage it as effectively as possible. Many have written on the challenges of managing and leading change during the pandemic (see https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/07/22/academic-administrator-shares-lessons-managing-change-during-covid-opinion , https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2021/03/26/leadership-lessons-from-a-year-of-covid-19/?sh=b3f9bdf13645 , and https://www.harvardbusiness.org/leading-through-a-pandemic/ , for example). One of the key principles of MLA is to balance change with continuity. Too much change without any sense of institutional stability is very unsettling for most people. Change can be very difficult for people who define freedom in terms of their individual rights; their freedom to conduct their daily business may be dramatically impacted by external circumstances that require a shift in organizational policies and procedures. For these people, leading through change may require demonstrating more empathy and compassion in their communications with team members (see, for example, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/leadership-in-a-crisis ). One way to build resilience and a mindset of “we’re in this together” is for leadership to demonstrate an MLA model of freedom: status and function require people to have responsibility and buy in to the organization’s mission. Particularly in a time of crisis, it is crucial that leadership not only builds trust, but acknowledges the actual pain and negative impact that needed change may have on certain team members. In short, if everyone sees MLA as only about my own freedom (in any role), we lose sight of the important role of responsibility and the role of the organizational mission. These are just some brief thoughts about how to relate MLA’s idea of freedom to your organization or daily life. For a more in-depth treatment, please see our MLA podcast. There’s a lot going on at MLARI, and we’re excited to share it with all of you!

How do we find individual freedom, dignity, status and function in a society dominated by institutions that, to many, don’t seem to function effectively?

American society is polarized about almost everything. Unfortunately, politics comes into play in virtually every discussion. Public health measures to combat the rising death tolls of COVID-19 are politicized.