Business Finance
Effective Leadership as A Liberal Art and Tolstoy on Lincoln Readings Paper

Question Description

Need help with my Business question - I’m studying for my class.


READ: Maciariello and Linkletter, Ch. 6 - "Effective Leadership as a Liberal Art.”

READ: Tolstoy on Lincoln

READ: “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap:,28804,2025898_2025900_2026107,00.html (Links to an external site.)

READ: Larry Spears, “Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders,” The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, Vol. 1 Issue 1, 2010, 25-30. (Links to an external site.)


After covering the required readings for Lesson 8, pay special attention to the article by Larry Spears, “Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders.”

  1. Larry Spears describes 10 aspects of Servant Leadership in the article. Can you identify among these 10, the characteristics of a moralist? How do the Trust Conditions, Autonomy Preference, and Identity Utility apply?
  2. Based on these 10 aspects and the material in Lesson 8, what can good leadership accomplish? What does "bad" leadership accomplish? (Don't forget to read about "Chainsaw Al.")

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1 2 DRUCKER’S LOST ART OF MANAGEMENT Readings in Management as a Liberal Art Table of Contents: Forward by Joseph Maciariello Innovation and Entrepreneurship based on Drucker’s Principles: Chapter 2, “Management and Liberal Arts Traditions: Bridging Two Worlds,” Drucker’s Lost Art of Management by Joseph Maciariello and Karen Linkletter Leadership Based on Drucker’s Principles: Chapter 6: “Effective Leadership as a Liberal Art,” Drucker’s Lost Art of Management by Joseph Maciariello and Karen Linkletter Strategic Management: Chapter 3 “Queens, Factory Girls and Schumpeter,” Good Profit by Charles G. Koch Marketing Management: Chapter 7 “Virtues and Talents” Good Profit by Charles G. Koch Management of Information Systems: Chapter 8 “Knowledge Processes” Good Profit by Charles G. Koch Operations Management: Chapter 9 “Decision Rights” from Good Profit by Charles G. Koch Quantitative Analysis for Decision Making: “Case Study #2: Insurance at Koch” from Good Profit by Charles G. Koch Accounting for Decision Making: Case 3: “What is a Growth Company” from Management Cases, Revised 2008 edition by Peter F. Drucker—forward by Joseph A. Maciariello Corporate Finance: Case 24 “Corporate Image to Brand Image: Yuhan-Kimberly from Management Cases, Revised 2008 edition by Peter F. Drucker—forward by Joseph A. Maciariello Management and Liberal Arts Traditions: Bridging the Two Worlds 3 Foreword The basis of the practice of management as a liberal art (MLA) starts from the observations and critical analyses of all the writings of Peter Drucker. The goal is to arrive at specific generalizations to form the framework that could be applied in today’s environment and managerial practice. The Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute seeks to formally integrate the practice of management and the disciplines within liberal arts to support executives in all sectors of the economy and society. Liberal arts, per se, is a complex array of disciplines that can range from music to philosophy. Components of the liberal arts have a direct application to the practice of management, and it is this amalgam of both liberal arts and management science that forms the genesis and purpose of the Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute. There are both narrow and broad dimensions to the practice of MLA. The narrow pattern tries to affirmatively answer the multidimensional question articulated by C William Pollard: "Can the business firm produce goods and services, excel at serving the customer, make money, create wealth for shareholders, and also be a moral community for the development of human character and social concern?" —C William Pollard, The Tides of Life, 2014, p. 99 The broad dimensions of this subject also follow from the philosophy of Peter Drucker in his publications on society and management. For a society to be functional its executives should provide dignity and justice for its employees; its managements’ basis of power and authority should be legitimate and adhere to the values of society, and its executives should keep to these values while possessing the competence and integrity to lead change. The practice of management as a liberal art, the MLA Research Institute and this book hold to both the narrow and broad aspects of the subject. They should serve you well in your early career as well as help you grow to meet the challenges of the future. This book can also serve the experienced executive with the opportunity to revisit the position of a manager in today’s ever-changing society and provide the tools for self-reflection. 4 DRUCKER’S LOST ART OF MANAGEMENT My best wishes for your success and well-being. Joseph A. Maciariello Director of Research The Joseph A. Maciariello Management as a Liberal Art Research Institute Management and Liberal Arts Traditions: Bridging the Two Worlds 5 Introduction I was fortunate to have been one of Peter Drucker’s graduate students in the late 1970’s and my friendship continued for years following. Peter was a brilliant individual but not the kind of brilliance one typically imagines. He didn’t expand our understanding of energy and light as did Einstein’s E = MC2 formula, nor did he help us understand the universe as did Steven Hawkins, but instead he had the ability to look at how managers function in a work setting and articulate how a manager could improve. In his voluminous and clearly articulate body of work, he stated what was obvious to everyone after he said it! In The New Realities, Peter Drucker wrote, “Management is what tradition used to call a liberal art – “liberal” because it deals with the fundamentals of knowledge, self-knowledge, wisdom, and leadership; “art” because it deals with practice and application.” His writings allow us to “read between the lines” and take material from different sources of his authorship and develop the theme that has the potential to be one of the most significant insights for managers since the scientific study of work initiated in the early 1900’s by Henry Fauol and Frederick Winslow Taylor. This may seem a bit simple, but Management as a Liberal Art is just about understanding people as individuals and treating them with respect. Drucker used the word “art” in conjunction with management, because there is no single “recipe” or formula that can be taught to students and practioners that addresses each and every management challenge and/or situation. The word “liberal” refers to favoring or permitting freedom of action (think of Drucker’s principle of Management by Objectives that encourages managers to let subordinates have an equal say in how they do their jobs). As Peter stated: “No organization can do better than the people it has” from Managing the Non-Profit Organization. Peter’s gift to the world was his ability to state the obvious in terms everyone could easily understand and apply. MLA is the new gift that Peter Drucker leaves us to improve management forever. This book is a compendium of material from three very relevant sources: Peter Drucker, Joseph Maciariello and Charles Koch. Collected in this edition, it can serve as a single publication for the design of an academic course in graduate business programs. Students and faculty at California Institute of Advanced Management (CiAM) have found it to be very useful as they incorporate MLA into their curriculum. MLA is a new body of thought that should be taught in every graduate school of business throughout the world as its time is right and its time is now! 6 DRUCKER’S LOST ART OF MANAGEMENT Dr. Eric J. McLaughlin Vice President and Chief Academic Officer California Institute of Advanced Management (CiAM) Management and Liberal Arts Traditions: Bridging the Two Worlds 7 Divisions between Management and the Liberal Arts If education, particularly in America, has always emphasized the importance of both instilling cultural values and developing the ability to function in society, then what is the source of the current divide between management and the liberal arts? When did the liberal arts become irrelevant to the training of managers? And when did the business of organizations and the concern with a functioning society become divorced from the interests of those engaged in the liberal arts? To understand the origin of this split between management and the liberal arts is to begin to understand how to repair it. The disruptions associated with the rise of the modern corporation in the United States have been well documented. Beginning with the railroads in the 1860s and 1870s and continuing with entities such as Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel, modern capitalism was met with growing trepidation and suspicion on the part of the American public, as increasingly larger and larger companies wielded more and more power. Labor unrest, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Haymarket Riot of 1884, coupled with a growing urban population of immigrants, added to public concern that the price of progress was perhaps too steep. Progressive reformers sought solutions to poverty, corruption, crime, and other urban ills, while government did little to curb the power of the trusts; in fact, a great merger boom in the late 1890s created even larger organizations with even more economic and political power. Amid these disruptions of late nineteenth-century society, the leaders of the burgeoning private sector sought to legitimize their authority. As Rakesh Khurana has argued, managers saw that affiliating themselves with the modern research universities would validate business as a profession. Just as higher education had dedicated itself to a tradition inherited from the liberal arts ideal, management, too, could embrace “its own rationality, disinterestedness, and commitment to commonly held values” (Khurana, 2007, p. 87). Through its retention of the liberal arts curriculum, albeit modified through the elective system and acceptance of the “liberal-free ideal,” the American university continued the traditional emphasis on character formation and human development through the tumultuous late nineteenth century. Any group of practitioners wishing to consider themselves “professionals” would be well served by having some attachment to that moral and ethical tradition. It is not surprising, then, that the first business school sought to capitalize on the trend toward scientific specialization while retaining elements of the liberal arts tradition. The University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, established in 1881, was the first university-based business school; by 1893, there were more than 500 commercial business colleges in the United States (Khurana, 2007, p. 89). As did Penn, Dartmouth and Harvard responded to the growing call for management training and 8 DRUCKER’S LOST ART OF MANAGEMENT founded their own schools of business: Tuck School of Administration and Finance (1900) and Harvard Business School (1908), respectively. The curriculum at each school reflected the interest in science that permeated university debates at the turn of the century. Scientific management, notably Taylorism, the scientific study and analysis of work to improve productivity, dominated the coursework at business schools, as managers sought to put themselves on the same level as other professionals by emphasizing the rational nature of their discipline. Yet, Harvard, Dartmouth, and Penn all came from the liberal arts tradition, and thus valued the inherited ideals of character formation and the development of well-rounded citizens and leaders. There was, therefore, a concern that the new business schools needed to be differentiated from the existing commercial schools. Key to this process of differentiation was the linkage with the liberal arts tradition inherent in each school. Wharton’s mission was to educate America’s upper crust who had inherited family money and needed to develop the “social consciousness and moral character” behind a life of service to the community, whether through business or government employment. Tuck mandated a “3 + 2” curriculum, in which students were required to complete three years of liberal arts study before they enrolled in the graduate business program; the idea behind this structure was to develop graduates who were broadly educated, not just interested in making money. Similarly, Harvard’s business program required incoming students to have a liberal arts education. Referencing Harvard’s founding document, which stated that the institution’s mission was “to advance Learning, and perpetuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust,” Owen Young said in his dedication speech for Harvard Business School that “the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration will do its utmost to guard against an illiterate ministry of business when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.” Linking the new business school with the liberal arts college’s founding ensured that the values of old would be inscribed on the new institution (Khurana, 2007, pp. 105-121). Just as the university-based management programs gained a foothold, government began to scrutinize the private sector more closely. Progressive literature, such as Frank Norris’s The Octopus (1901), which indicted the railroad monopoly in the west, and Ida M. Tarbell’s The History of the Standard Oil Company (1904), exposed some of the more questionable practices of American capitalists. President Theodore Roosevelt instigated actions to reign in big business, including the Expedition Act of 1903, which ordered circuit courts to give antitrust suits priority. Roosevelt also created the departments of Commerce and Labor, recognizing the need for government intervention in business affairs. The Panic of 1907, which seized the nation’s financial system, precipitated a series of reforms; the Pujo Committee Management and Liberal Arts Traditions: Bridging the Two Worlds 9 hearings on banking policy and practices would eventually lead to financial reforms under the administration of Woodrow Wilson, such as the creation of the Federal Reserve System. The new university-based business schools responded to this changing environment. In order to promote the professionalism of businessmen, the new business schools emphasized scientific management and rationalism in their curriculum in the early twentieth century. Much of the disorder of late nineteenthand early twentieth-century society involved labor disputes. Frederick Winslow Taylor devised scientific management to improve the economic welfare of labor and to reduce labor-management conflict. Taylor’s approach to management stemmed from his belief in the common interest between the worker and management. If by the use of scientific management Taylor and his followers could increase the productivity of both labor and capital, the result would be lower unit cost, higher wages, and higher profits. Taylor thus saw congruence between the interests of labor and management. Taylor’s influence on the business school curriculum increased after World War I, when management training was in high demand. After the United States entered the war in 1918, the needs of war production placed unprecedented demands on businesses, and the obsession with efficiency and planning reached new heights. President Woodrow Wilson created the War Industries Board to oversee the production of war materiel. Headed by Bernard Baruch, a successful investor on Wall Street, the War Industries Board exercised broad authority over the public sector. Herbert Hoover headed the Food Administration, using propaganda campaigns to entice the public to regulate its food consumption through such gimmicks as “Meatless Tuesdays.” The War Industries Board served as the model for a new concept of capitalism involving cooperation between government and business. By 1920, big business was no longer seen as the source of disruption. Instead, business, and its managerial professionals, held the answers to regulating the ups and downs of society. Most Americans believed that management, planning, and efficiency were the key to social order and prosperity. Scientific management and efficiency were not the only subjects stressed in business school courses, however. As discussed earlier, the belief in science and rational forward progress faced challenges in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Political upheaval, social disorder, and the technological realities of World War I, which included mustard gas and mechanized warfare, indicated that science and technology did not necessarily promise improvements to the human condition. In the new business schools as well as the research universities, the liberal arts remained the source of moral grounding for students in light of the seemingly immoral face of modern technological developments. In American colleges and universities, faculty sought to reinstate the primacy of the humanities through such vehicles 10 DRUCKER’S LOST ART OF MANAGEMENT as the core course and canons of “great books.” Business schools wrestled with how to incorporate the ideals of the liberal arts into their curriculum. In graduate programs, students were expected to come armed with undergraduate training in the humanities before they began graduate study in business; however, that did not answer the question of how to instill professionalism and a social conscience in the curriculum itself or how to sow those values in undergraduate business programs. The result was a rather shotgun approach to curriculum development, with each school creating its own course structure haphazardly. Some schools organized their courses to train managers for specific jobs, while others sought to link management closely to economics or to restructure traditional liberal arts courses (math, English, and history) to make them relevant to businessmen (accounting, business correspondence, and business history). It was not until the Great Depression that business school curriculum became more standardized, as more and more university deans expressed concern about the quality and goals of programs (Khurana, 2007, pp. 154-170). During the Great Depression, American capitalism came under scrutiny by those in academe as well as practicing managers and executives. In the early years following the stock market crash of 1929, most Americans continued to embrace corporatism, the cooperative relationship between business and government that reigned during the presidency of Herbert Hoover. However, as economic conditions deteriorated, and as the business experts seemed not to have the answers to the nation’s woes after all, management as a profession came under fire. Trained business professionals, the trustees of commerce, clearly could not solve the economic malaise that plagued the country. With the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932, Americans rejected the model of the business elite as expert and replaced it with a new emphasis on planning and bureaucracy in the public sector (Kennedy, 2009). Faced with this new attitude, managers and the business schools that trained them sought to shore up the image of both corporations in general and management as a profession. Two Columbia University professors, Gardiner Means and Adolf Berle, published The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932, 1933), in which they argued that American businesses were no longer run by owner-managers with a vested interest in the company. Instead, ownership in companies had become diffused among many people through profit sharing and pension plans. Corporate managers thus had a passive role and were only interested in the company’s profitability, not its day-to-day operations. The modern corporation, Berle and Means concluded, created a new form of property ownership in which the shareholders were subjected to the priorities of powerful managers. The Modern Corporation and Private Property presented the case for managers to consider their obligations to society, not just their own interests. In a time when corporate management was blamed for causing the Great Depression, Berle Management and Liberal Arts Traditions: Bridging the Two Worlds 11 and Means called on managers to understand their responsibilities for serving a much broader, diverse group of shareholders: the general public itself (Berle and Means, 1933). Business school curriculum also reflected the public’s new attitude. Academics criticized the increasingly specialized and technical bent to business school coursework, arguing that managers were no longer inculcated with a sense of social and ethical responsibility. Some called for more liberal arts courses in bu ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer


Running head: Leadership


A Moralist teaches, and in some instances, imposes his/her thoughts on other people by
forcing them to do things he/she considers to be honest or correct (Knobe, 2010).
Characteristics of a Moralist
The moralist is rigid and cannot be persuaded. This is a complete opposite of servant
leadership, where persuasion is a key characteristic. The ones led have to do precisely what the
moralist is instructing. They are not allowed to make an informed...

Purdue University

Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

It’s my second time using SP and the work has been great back to back :) The one and only resource on the Interwebs for the work that needs to be done!

Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags