Drucker Differences

I will post a number of management thoughts that I called Drucker Differences. You may respond on individual items. Ducker, of course refers to Peter F, Drucker, the Management Guru of Gurus.


Drucker Differences No. 1
Drucker concerns with why, what, who and when more than how. That is why he says that there is no one single solution is the right solution or one single management organization is the right organization. Management is a liberal art discipline where one has to understand what he is doing and why he is doing so in every decision making situation.


Drucker Differences No. 2

Drucker goes back to the basic. When one deals with basic, the basic can be stated simply and concisely. A manager is a knowledge worker and he/she has to apply his/her own knowledge for the situation and his/her own values to make decisions accordingly. For example, one must understand the business he/she is in by considering the three basic assumptions: the environment, the mission of the enterprise and the core competence of the enterprise. Simple and basic.


Drucker Differences No. 3

Drucker’s teaching is value based. Every decision and every thought of a manager is driven by the values he holds (knowingly or unknowingly). The value system should include integrity, human dignity, responsibility and pursue of Excellency. Thus there is no need of a separate subject on Business Ethics. His/her very act should be guided by the value system. For a corporation, in the same logical argument, should integrate social wellness and social concern into its business strategies.

That is why Drucker formulated the Corporate Social Integration in the early 60s. Michael Porter wrote his famous SCI in 2006. and award winning article on CSI in 2006.


Drucker Differences No. 4

Drucker perceives a dynamic world that changes. Time must be factored into every aspect of decision and action. Therefore one has to learn and improve in order not to be wasted (victim of law of thermal dynamics.) One cannot predict the future but what is happening is not agnostically random. Therefore one must make the future today diligently.


Drucker Differences No. 5 - methodology
One may say this is Drucker's weakness in terms of research. Peter Senge, Jim Collins, students (directly or indirectly) research by studying thousands of companies and interviewed even more business leaders to come up with some conclusions. By the time they get the books out (3 years data gathering and analysis, 2 years writing and publish) the facts changed and the foundation of the conclusions shaken. We all laugh at this. Schools and universities are now trapped y this sad cycle.

Drucker, on the other hand looked forward. He asked questions while he observed (not at a small spot-lighted area but relating to the society). With his deep understanding of law, economics, social theories, he was able to say something that are basic and hence lasting. Most of the influential, significant liberal arts theories (economics, political, religion, social behavior works) which have become the fundamentals of modern theories were done like this.

The environment side of the triple bottom line

The environment side of the triple bottom line

Two closely related factors drastically put a heavy burden on self-renewal of ecology. 

1. The sheer growth of world population. It stands at 6.9 billion, was only 300 million in 1350, 2 billion in 1920 and 8 billion by2025. One billion people will be added in 15 years.

2. The exponential growth of technology and productivity. The advancement provided the much enjoyed prosperity and yet through the power of marketing produces blind-sighted consumption and waste.

A few mega-scale disasters shook up then a small percent of people to the unbalanced environment issues. The green movement soon spreads to many responsible corporations that put environmental concern in their business strategies. (what M Porter and Drucker called Corporate Social Integration)

The evolution and the development of this bottom line is the effort of many but we know that by themselves, it is not enough.