Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The Educated Person

Peter Drucker, the "man who invented management," once wrote a deft little essay entitled, "The Educated Person." After reading this essay, it was as if he personally had read the script of my professional life from the past two years and was clearly and succinctly diagnosing the problem and the cure. Let me explain.

Drucker argues that we now live in a knowledge society whereby educated people, not giant storehouses of data, make the difference. Thus, defining what counts for "knowledge," or who is really educated, is central.  The debate rages between two sides. On the one side are the humanists who insist that real education consists of the "liberal arts" tradition or the "classics," which some have categorized as about 100 or so Great Books. Drucker says that, left alone, this tradition leaves people with lofty ideas about wisdom, truth and beauty, but with little ability to make real change in the world. The other side argues that the technicians, the specialized fields like engineering, law, medicine or business--all fields in a particular specialty--are the real "educated persons." Although most TV dramas would agree that these are the "experts," without a connection to the past, are bereft of the tools to understand the complexities of the world and its inherited traditions.

Drucker's solution to this debate, in beautiful simplicity, is summarized with this single idea:
The educated person will therefore have to be prepared to live and work simultaneously in two cultures--that of the "intellectual," who focuses on words and ideas, and that of the "manager," who focuses on people and work.
Drucker sees that in our modern world, both sides of the debate about an "educated person" need each other.  We need to live in the world of words and ideas. This forms the context for which we view the "big picture" and gives motivation to our lives. Yet the vast majority of people live out most of their lives in organizations which focus on tasks and interpersonal relationships. In this balance is the true educated person.

Let me share a bit of my own story. I graduated from seminary with my master's degree in 2009. Having finished three years of graduate study in theology, and an undergraduate degree in economics and Spanish, I was filled with "words and ideas." And I was quite good at this world.  Grades were never a problem, and I received academic accolades for my work.  My education made me into one who loved old books and was incredibly optimistic about changing the world. My mind and spirit danced with visions of how church, education, and society ought to change.

But there was a problem. I was unemployable.

After I graduated I took a hard look at my resume and realized that I was just like a million other young, bright, educated 20 somethings who were unemployed (a recent study I read showed that 1/3 of us are currently jobless).  I had plenty of visions for change, but very few methods for actually bringing about such change.  So, I took two part time jobs to bring in an income and support my wife and baby daughter.

I quickly realized that I had been steeped in the beauties of the "humanist" (Christian humanist in my case) tradition, but had almost no ability to work with people or in organizations.  So, I began asking questions.  After a half a year of curiosity, I discovered mysterious documents with the name of "strategic initiatives." I desperately tried to figure out how people actually accomplished their visions, and how they worked with other people to make this happen.

This work of the technician, or the "leader" as some might call it, was new to me. And it was an incredibly important aspect of my own education that was missing.  I am now underway in a self-taught school of learning how to function in organizations and how to work positively and productively with other people--a true component of what it means to be educated.

In today's world, we sell students short if we don't show them the beauties and the lessons of the past. But we also sell them short if we don't give them the tangible skills to do something about their visions.  Real education, as it has been said, must be knowledge and character married to action--namely wisdom. King Solomon once remarked, "Get wisdom. Though it cost all your have, get understanding." Indeed, let the educated people of the 21st century pursue wisdom with the fervor of an intellectual and the diligence of a manager.

6 comments:

  1. Hey Jeff: This post challenged me. According to Peter Drucker's formulation, I'm not an educated person because, like you, I've spent nearly all my time in the intellectual culture and little in the managerial culture. To play the devil's advocate, I wonder if his formulation is vulnerable to Promethean arrogance or hubris. Can every person succeed at thinking and doing? Augustine believed that humans are divided according to whether they're contemplative or active. Sure, we're a mixture of both but the orientation is usually decisive. Most people are active, and they make society run. But the contemplative folks serve an important role as well, even if their "results" are less tangible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Christopher,
    Thanks for the honest feedback. In response, I'd say take Drucker's comments with a grain of salt. I would certainly call you "educated"--one of my most educated friends! However, in my life, I've been frustrated by the apparent gap between thinkers and doers, or Augustine's "contemplative and active." In the past, my best thoughts left me frustrated if I had no way to achieve them. And all the managerial skill in the world if one has a dim view of the world and what is possible. One of my favorite thinkers, the economist Friedrich Hayek, was a legendary thinker, whose ideas are really the foundation for modern conservatism. However, it took a Thatcher and Reagan to make them happen. For me, one of the great examples of the educated person is Martin Luther King Jr. -- obvious brilliance, acute moral vision, and willingness to bring abstractions to the streets for sweeping change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeff: Good examples. Hayek was a thinker while Thatcher and Reagan were doers. Martin Luther King, Jr. is that rare individual who combined the contemplative and active orientations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeff, the same things I've been working to understand, but in my case still trying well on in life to get to grips with management thinking.
    Alasdair MacIntyre's book After Virtue is a study of contemporary ethics and its disconnect with tradition. I have to be careful here as I have not finished reading it, but as far as I understand he writes about management as dependent on creating illusions of technical effectiveness on which its authority is chiefly based, which in actual fact conceal the manipulation of people as objects and not persons. I sensed here the origin of my profound discomfort with management culture: not primarily - as I suspected - my inability to adapt adequately to something apparently reasonable and benign, but rather management's incapacity vis-a-vis genuinely human relations and the mendacity implied in this situation. Any thoughts on MacIntyre's views?

    Ben. www.uzima.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Ben,
    Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Yes, I'd agree with aspects of MacIntyre's view. Much management can be about manipulating people as objects. But I'm not sure it has to be that way. For a Christian, management finds its basis in service, and forming institutions based around the common good are not only necessary, but socially beneficial. The reality is that I do exist in an organization, and I'm connected with other people in my office through our organization's mission. We can critique management culture, but we need to come up with a way to both live in the modern world and shape its institutions for the common good. Plus, people need jobs - and most of those exist somewhere in the world of 'management.' Here's a question for you: do you think MacIntyre gets along with his boss?

    ReplyDelete