Abstract Toxic leadership is a type of leadership that is destructive to members of a team, an organization, and society at large. It is ubiquitous and ever-present in a variety of settings. Yet, within the larger body of the leadership literature, toxic leadership accounts for a surprisingly small percentage of the leadership research. There are dozens of widely known and well documented cases of the devastating consequences of toxic leadership. So, why is there such little scientific interest in conceptualizing and operationalizing toxic leadership? This paper explores the multi-faceted elements of toxic leadership and reviews the behaviors, characteristics, and consequences associated with toxic leadership. The paper demonstrates what healthy leadership looks like and presents a working definition of toxic leadership. Such a working definition is vitally important to allow the academic community to build upon for further study and research. Keywords: Leadership, Toxicity; Health; Toxic Leadership INTRODUCTION Toxic leadership is a type of leadership that is destructive to members of a team, an organization, and society at large. It is ubiquitous and has been for centuries. Yet, within the larger body of the leadership literature, toxic leadership accounts for an alarmingly small percentage of the leadership research. There are dozens of widely known and well documented cases of the devastating consequences of toxic leadership. So, why is there such little scientific interest in conceptualizing and operationalizing toxic leadership? It seems, at an outset, that toxic leaders are found everywhere. Indeed, it appears to occur in every industry and at every level of government (Lipman-Bluman, 2005). As Wright (2015) points out from a military context, there are almost a countless number of historical examples whereby leaders place an emphasis on service and sacrifice above anything else resulting in the destruction of follower morale. More disturbingly, nobody is immune to toxic leadership. New Paragraph

Drucker wrote that the businesses he consulted for were his research laboratories. His research was based on observation of what went on. This type of research was also practiced by both Einstein and Freud. It’s termed analytical research. Drucker did not arrive at his theories in a laboratory surrounded by microscopes, computers, and white-coated scientists, but by people and things and their interaction to which he applied his observation and analysis. Drucker declared management not a science but a liberal art. Therefore, while most management researchers use the synthetic method of research with multiple observations testing one or more hypotheses for statistical mathematical differences, Drucker used the liberal arts and analytical research. Einstein’s Work Einstein also used analytic and not synthetic methods of research. In 1905, he produced four ground breaking papers in one year, winning the Nobel Prize for theoretical physics. None of the four were written in the laboratory, but rather during spare time while at his first post PhD job as an assistant patent examiner in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. Analytical research again. How Einstein Developed his Two Most Famous Theories Einstein conceived both the Theory of Relativity and developed the most famous equation in history (E= mc²), the equation for the conservation of energy during at that Swiss Patent office. The first was structured around imagining himself traveling along side of a beam of light. It is possible that Einstein provided Drucker with the idea for his methods. They are similar. While Drucker observed phenomena and interactions of people in organizations, Einstein observed things and Freud observed the contents of his subject’s minds. Einstein Explains His Methodology In an article in the London Times written in 1919, Einstein explained what he called his “Theories of Principle.” He wrote that his theories: “. . . employed the analytical, not the synthetic method. 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.” I do not know whether Drucker and Freud read Einstein’s article. Drucker was only ten years old at the time it was published. I doubt whether he knew English at the time. However, Drucker did refer to Einstein in publication, and it is possible that he read his article. Synthetic research uses data obtained and a hypothesis based on multiple inputs. It then tests the hypothesis to prove or disprove it by testing the hypothesis mathematically for significant difference. Most researchers in academia take this approach. Analytical research on the other hand starts with an unknown and proceeds to the known. There are no hypotheses. 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.” Freud believed that by analyzing dreams and memories, we can understand them, while they subconsciously influence behavior and feelings. The analytical process is how all three: Einstein, Freud, and Drucker arrived at their theories. Their analytical approach used a simple model: Observation, either real, imagined, or mental imagery Analysis of what was observed Construction of Theory based on these observations They observed the results of their psychological techniques without multiple surveys or a hypothesis. As a result, Freud’s psychoanalysis, though widely adopted and the basic process still used, it was never termed a science. Unexpected Insights at an Academic Conference I found insights into Drucker’s analytical methods about thirty years ago; I was invited to participate as a member of a panel of marketing textbook authors at an academic conference. The purpose of the panel was to discuss the lack of influence of marketing textbooks on management practice. During this discussion, one question was directed specifically at me. I was the only one of the five academic authors on the panel to have written both professional books for practicing managers and textbooks for students. The question was why it was that managers seemed many years behind adopting the latest practices described in textbooks while innovations appearing in “trade” books seemed to be almost immediately tested and adopted by practitioners? I think someone mentioned Japanese Management and Total Quality Management as than recent examples. I thought for a moment and then responded: “The writers of textbooks must bring together research from many sources to confirm the main points or theories they discuss in their textbooks. In many cases, there are alternate theories to present regarding the methods proposed for practice. In addition, the time needed for the textbook writer to do research, must be added the time for the original researcher to conduct experiments, including gathering data from multiple sources, testing hypotheses and to find suitable academic journals for publication. This can require many months before such a paper is even accepted. Even after the textbook is published and used in the classroom, textbooks are used to instruct students and rarely read by practitioners. It may take several years before these students are in positions of authority and able to put into practice what is taught. Nevertheless, research journals are generally more respected than books by researchers in academic institutions, and their accreditors. On the other hand, a professional book based on theory resulting from personal observation can more quickly be applied to practice as the professional book goes right into the hands of a practitioner who can put it to into immediate use.” This was further confirmed by distinguished consumer behavior researcher Jagdish Sheth in a presentation at which he noted that though he had numerous publications in research journals over a thirty year period he had received only two inquiries in total from these articles, whereas he had recently completed an article for Wall Street Journal and received almost 200 hundred letters from practitioners. More Insight While preparing a lecture for doctorial students on the value of writing professional books for disseminating theory as Drucker did, I came across additional material supporting Professor Sheth’s experience. Many of the most widely publicized theories of management reached practitioners first by publishing a book and getting the information directly to the user. These include not only Drucker’s Management by Objectives from The Practice of Management (Harper & Brothers, 1954) and other methods resulting from Drucker’s theories, but also, Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs disseminated through his book Motivation and Personality (Harper & Brothers, 1954) and Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y disseminated through his book The Human Side of Enterprise . (McGraw-Hill, 1960). There were lots of articles published in research journals on these topics, but this was after professional books had already been published by the originators of these ideas and the theories had already been tested and were known to practitioners. Research that was published was written to confirm or deny various aspects of the theories that the book authors introduced, or the authors themselves wrote to help define their theories which they had already published in books. Drucker’s Methodology and Thinking Drucker empirically observed general properties of phenomena or through his questions and their answers, had his clients do so. He did not start with synthetic mathematical formulae into which data was inserted to determine the better method but used his powers of observation and reasoning in determining theory and then further testing this material as he saw it applied. This is perhaps why, although Drucker claimed that he always began with his ignorance, yet he insisted on measurements and numbers when seeking to measure performance and progress. Yet he mostly ignored quantitative means in developing his theories. Less clear was the process he followed. When queried as to his methods, he said only that he listened, and then paused adding, that he listened “to himself”. This comment was made in a humorous and not an arrogant way. It is probable that Drucker was speaking 100% accurately. He listened to his own logical reasoning in developing theory or in applying the resulting theory in action by his clients. That he followed an established process was clear although unlike Einstein, he did not publish it. Still, it is highly likely that their methods were similar, if not identical. This important tool was a part of Drucker’s considerable mental arsenal. It is especially important since he did not use models of mathematical analysis to arrive at his conclusions and recommendations. I cannot state the mathematical equations or his favorite methods of determining significant differences, because he taught us none. Still, if we understand that his processes were like Einstein’s that is observation and analytical thinking, we may do the same in research and management decision making and get similar results. This does not mean that synthetic research should be abandoned. Only those investigations might be accomplished more efficiently or effectively in some situations by a different means and consequently that alternate methods of research can be used.

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.

Good consulting not only creates good management – consulting done right is good management. I don’t know when Drucker discovered this, but he explained this one night as he concluded what he had taught us in a course in the Executive PhD at Claremont Graduate School. He stated he was ignorant when he began his consulting assignments. It all started when he announced that he was ready to answer any questions on any subject that we might have. One of my bolder classmates raised his hand, was recognized, and began his question. “You have built a reputation as the world’s foremost management expert based on your extensive knowledge and your wide experience consulting with corporations. My question is how did you gain such a vast store of knowledge and experience about so many aspects of management in so many different organizations in so many different countries with different cultures, languages, and traditions?” There was dead silence in the room both at the challenge and in anticipation of how or whether Drucker would answer this impertinence. Drucker paused. Most of us expected that he would tell us of his years of studying for advanced degrees in Austria and Germany and his work in the U.S. and elsewhere. We were mistaken. Drucker paused for only a few seconds. “That is a very easy question to answer,” he began, “because I bring neither knowledge nor experience to any consulting situation.” We were shocked by these words, but it got worse. “What I bring is my ignorance and lack of experience in anything having to do with the problem,” he continued. He paused as mouths fell open in surprise. “Due to my complete lack of knowledge and experience, the only thing I can do is to ask questions of those who engage me. It is they who have the knowledge and experience which I lack,” Drucker continued, “they are the real experts.” “This implies that consulting is management” he concluded. We asked about his questions. Drucker’s Basic Questions He immediately gave us his main questions: What business are you in and what is the mission or purpose of your organization? Who is your customer? What does your customer value? What results are you seeking? What is your plan to achieve these results? Questions Drucker Asked the CEO of GE These were his initial questions, but he said that there were others. The most famous were his two questions revealed publicly by Jack Welch shortly after he became CEO of GE. First, “What businesses would you wish GE weren’t in?” Drucker had asked. Second, “What you are going to do about it?” Welch had made the decision to sell or liquidate even profitable GE businesses which were not number one or two in its market and were unlikely to attain this position. He used the funds saved to invest in businesses of higher potential. This caused GE’s value to increase 4000%.” He called this his abandonment theory. One former client wrote: “Drucker got us thinking through our problem and applying our own expertise and experience in a way we had never done before. This was amazingly effective and valuable, and we found valuable solutions to our issues that we had missed in the past. We discovered these ourselves because of his questions.” Drucker, the Management Consultant Drucker was different. Here was an internationally famous management expert who when not in his office at Claremont Graduate University who used his living room as his consulting office and operated without a staff. He even answered the phone himself. He agreed that he helped clients from major corporations and governments but did not claim any special knowledge and experience in doing this. He consulted without claiming expertise yet collected as much as $10,000 for a few hours work. Yet few clients complained that he was unworthy of his fees. He also taught a concise methodology to his clients which they followed to reach solutions in several direct steps which was also published in one of his books. Define the Central Problem You can’t solve a problem effectively until you diagnose it accurately. If a medical doctor makes an incorrect diagnosis and applies the wrong treatment or medicine, the patient can get worse not better. In any case he is unlikely to be cured. It is the same with management analysis. Yet some consultants attempt a solution without understanding the issue fully. Instead, you must uncover the central problem that’s creating symptoms. Defining the central problem is the single most difficult yet most important task in the analysis process. Once you correctly identify the central problem, you can usually identify several possible solutions. But if the wrong problem is identified, even a brilliant idea will not help and may cause the situation to worsen. One of the major errors made in defining the central problem is confusing the symptoms with the problem. Low profits, poor sales, or unusual personnel turnover are not central problems, but symptoms of central problems. Start with a brief, even one-sentence description. Be aware that even after identifying the problem and wording it concisely, in many cases you will have to modify the problem statement as you proceed through the analysis. Also, be careful not to word the problem as if it were the solution by consciously or unconsciously assuming that one course of action is correct before you complete the analysis. Your goal at this point is to word the problem sentence broadly enough that you will not overlook a potential solution, but not so general as to be meaningless. Avoid wording your problem so that only one of two alternatives are possible: a yes or no. Be careful about incorporating extraneous facts in your central problem. They can make the statement unnecessarily complex and more difficult and confusing. With these cautionary notes, you can begin formulating your problem statement. The answer to Drucker earlier questions helped to develop the central problem. Drucker took as much time as needed fine-tuning the central problem. He knew that working on the wrong problem was not only a waste of time, but it also meant a waste of resources and money, and almost invariably resulted in a less optimal solution. Yet he rarely used a complicated mathematical analysis but claimed that managers most frequently and correctly made management decisions after study, but from the gut. Determine the Relevant Factors Relevant Factors may include facts, estimates, speculations, assumptions, time available, financial limitations, and more. All should be explored before they are accepted. Also, their relevancy is important. Even though there will be many factors associated with any situation, you should determine and list only those factors that are relevant to the central problem. List Alternative Courses of Action Although theoretically it is possible to have an alternative with all advantages and no disadvantages, this is highly unlikely. If this were the case, usually the solution is self-evident, and a formal problem-solving analysis procedure unnecessary. Alternatives have both advantages and disadvantages. These are of importance in any situation and will be analyzed fully in the next step. Discuss, Compare and Analyze Each Alternative Solution During the analysis, compare the relative importance of each alternatives’ advantages and disadvantages with every other alternative. Some alternatives have few disadvantages, but no great advantage either. In any case, you need to think it through your thinking. This helps this method to be effective in explaining the final conclusions and recommendations to others after a clear solution is developed. Here is a test of the clarity of the logic your solution and of your thinking: Show the entire written document up to this point to someone who is unfamiliar with the issue. Have this individual read everything you have developed to this point. Then ask your reader for conclusions. If they are almost the same as yours, you have correctly worded your discussion and analysis. If different than yours, you need to do what is necessary to make your analysis clearer to the reader. Recommend the Solution List your recommendations resulting from your previous discussion, analysis, and conclusions. Don't list new recommendations based on information not included in your analysis. If you think they are needed, go back, and add them to earlier in the analysis. You may even need to return to and reword your central problem. Ensure that your recommendations solve the central problem. If your recommendations don’t solve the problem as you wrote it, something is either wrong with your recommendations or you need to reword your central problem. QED is Latin for " Quod Erat Demonstrandum " or “thus it is shown”: there is a “Drucker Difference” and action from Drucker’s consulting methods and consulting is management! -- *Adapted from Consulting Drucker by William A. Cohen (LID, 2018) and syndicated internationally.

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

We negotiate everything. Our negotiations include starting salaries, raises, terms of employment, automobiles, homes, contracts of all types, commissions, fees, fines, choice vs. not-so-choice hotel rooms, relationships with the opposite sex including our spouses, table location in a restaurant, marriages, divorces, acts between countries in both war and peace . . . the list is unending. All of us negotiate every single day. It is no surprise that our political leaders must negotiate frequently, and it would be difficult to overestimate the influence of negotiation on both our professional and our personal lives. Yet negotiation is taught few professional schools and even many relationship experts skip instruction and advice in this area. What makes negotiation especially interesting is that superior power from strength, knowledge, wealth, or any other advantage does not in itself ensure a win and even a so called “win-win” negotiation may be dramatically unfair to one side or the other depending on a point of view or what one side expects and ultimately obtains. Peter Drucker was a master negotiator, and he knew its importance. He was not selfish and wanted to help individuals, their businesses, and non-profits. But this didn’t stop him from negotiating $10,000 a day from willing corporations for his consulting services or charging zero to others if he had other objectives in mind. A Simple Negotiation Won American Independence Long before he became president, George Washington was a general, and commanded the American Continental Army. In the final battle of the American War of Independence, he had a short-term advantage, but there was also great danger in his strategy. Washington had moved the bulk of his army south to Yorktown, Virginia and maneuvered it so that he had superior numbers in the south as he confronted his British adversary. Lord Cornwallis’ commanded the British force which opposed him. Another major part of the British Army was in New York. However, because England had superiority at sea and had transport ships available in this situation Cornwallis considered the two forces mutually supporting because with the small American navy, he could move the large English force from the New York area to Yorktown to join with the British army already in the Yorktown area fair easily. If Cornwallis did this, his army would outnumber Washington’s and the advantage of numerical superiority in Yorktown would pass to the English. The Americans had no fleet to oppose such an operation. However, France was allied with the Americans and there was a French battle fleet in the Western Hemisphere commanded by Admiral Francoise De Grasse. Cornwallis probably overlooked it because it was in the Caribbean where it was safe during the storm season occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. Washington wrote to Admiral DeGrasse asking him to bring the fleet to stop the two British armies from joining together and to lend ship firepower in support against Lord Cornwallis’ Army at Yorktown for the upcoming battle. DeGrasse replied that though he could see the advantage of this move he was unable to comply due to the risk of losing his ships at sea in the upcoming season of hurricanes and tropical storms. If caught without a suitable port in northern waters, he would risk loss of his entire fleet. Washington immediately informed him that if he brought the fleet north at once, he would initiate the battle before the coming storms. He could therefore guarantee that his action against Cornwallis would be over before the fleet was endangered from the weather. The fact that the fleet could help the Americans in battle without the risk of weather damage was an important factor in their negotiation which convinced DeGrasse who moved the fleet and supported Washington during the battle first by preventing the two British forces from joining to gain numerical superiority, but also by using the fleet’s firepower during the battle itself, Cornwallis was unable to bring reinforcements from New York, and outnumbered, outgunned, and running low on supplies, he was forced to surrender his army to Washington. This ended the American War of Independence. During surrender ceremonies Cornwallis ordered music played appropriately entitled “The World Turned Upside Down” confirming the enormity of the outcome from his point of view. We May Want a “Win-Win” but there are many Definitions of this Term The term “win-win” negotiation has become popular over the last thirty years or so, but if you look closely, even a negotiation under the most draconian terms may be considered a “win-win.” The Treaty of Versailles was an example. When this treaty was signed with Germany, ending WW I, it was thought that it ended “the war to end all wars.” In fact, it led to a much larger war. Germany had little choice but to sign the treaty. Its armies were undefeated, but they could no longer be supplied to meet the allies increasingly stronger forces after the U.S. entered the war. The terms the allies insisted upon were extremely severe, with Germany not only suffering the humiliation of having to formally accept responsibility for the whole war, but loss of territory and agreeing to pay heavy war reparations to the allies. Still, it was a “win—win” in that Germany avoided complete collapse, starvation of its population and worse at the hands of the victors, since Germany defenseless, the allies had the power to do what it wished. Of course, there are situations where both sides may benefit mutually, and the situation may be considered fair minded to both sides. One of the most popular books on negotiation infers that both sides in most negotiations should be fair minded. That may be true in some situations; but the assumption that this can be true in all, or even most, situations is a dangerous assumption. Of course, We All Want to be Fair and Ethical One should be ethical and of course, seek common interests and compromises that work. But it is foolish to assume that the other side always has such high moral principles and that it will not take advantage of you if they can, or at minimum what you consider fair and ethical and what someone else considers fair and ethical may not be the same. A salesman may not weigh your interests equally when his own family’s welfare is at stake, nor an opposing attorney when the very ethics of his profession is to do everything within the law to protect and seek the other side’s best interests, not yours. Or another example. When you negotiate a salary at work, as a new employee, your future employer may see it in the best interests of the company to keep your starting compensation as low as possible. It may be limited by company policy to salary increases of 3 % or less in a year. So even a 10% increase in starting compensation over your current salary could be the equivalent of more than three years in raises no matter how spectacular your performance. If you depend on a negotiating adversary’s goodwill, regardless of implied promises, you may be disappointed. We Frequently Must Negotiate with Those More Powerful If this weren’t bad enough, we frequently must negotiate with those who are more powerful or at least appear to be more powerful than ourselves. How do we deal with one whom has greater clout? If you are a millionaire, you can hire a high-priced lawyer. But what if you are not and you must negotiate with an entity such as the U.S. government, a large corporation, or a traffic cop? In international negotiations countries are happy to negotiate a result which leaves them in a position to attain goals in the future to obtain which cannot be attained be in the present. Five Important Rules for Negotiating with a More Powerful Entity The following simple rules for negotiating with powerful entities can help you to be effective: Prepare yourself fully. Never attempt to negotiate anything without doing a complete analysis of the situation and preparing a plan including your response to unexpected problems or opportunities and surprising situations or information. Never believe anything told you by someone you are negotiating with unless the accuracy of the information presented to you has been confirmed previously. Otherwise assume only that it could be true. There will always be pressures on your side to make a deal. Usually whoever you are negotiating with has an equal, or even greater pressure to make a deal for some other reason. You may be in a much stronger position than you think. Never be afraid to ask for more after someone has given you a “best and final” offer. Sometimes just the question, “is that the best you can do?” can be worth a great deal. Always be courteous and polite to the one you are negotiating with even if you can’t make a deal. Never disrespect a negotiating adversary. Think of the effect of anything you say to or about an adversary in a negotiation. *Adapted from the book Peter Drucker on Consulting: How to Apply Drucker’s Principles for Business Success by William A. Cohen (LID, 2016) and syndicated elsewhere. 

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