What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Discontinuity
The closing decades of the twentieth century have been characterized as a period of disruption and discontinuity in which the structure and meaning of economy, polity, and society have been radically altered. In this volume Peter Drucker focuses with great clarity and perception on the forces of change that are transforming the economic landscape and creating tomorrow's society. Drucker discerns four major areas of discontinuity underlying contemporary social and cultural reality. These (1) the explosion of new technologies resulting in major new industries; (2) the change from an international to a world economy―an economy that presently lacks policy, theory, and institutions; (3) a new sociopolitical reality of pluralistic institutions that poses drastic political, philosophical, and spritual challenges; and (4) the new universe of knowledge based on mass education and its implications in work, leisure, and leadership. Peter Drucker brings to this work an intimate knowledge and objective view of the particular and general. The Age of Discontinuity is a fascinating and important blueprint for shaping a future already very much with us.
434 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
10 people are currently reading
361 people want to read
About the author
Peter F. Drucker
596 books2,004 followersPeter Ferdinand Drucker was a writer, management consultant and university professor. His writing focused on management-related literature. Peter Drucker made famous the term knowledge worker and is thought to have unknowingly ushered in the knowledge economy, which effectively challenges Karl Marx's world-view of the political economy. George Orwell credits Peter Drucker as one of the only writers to predict the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.
The son of a high level civil servant in the Habsburg empire, Drucker was born in the chocolate capital of Austria, in a small village named Kaasgraben (now a suburb of Vienna, part of the 19th district, Döbling). Following the defeat of Austria-Hungary in World War I, there were few opportunities for employment in Vienna so after finishing school he went to Germany, first working in banking and then in journalism. While in Germany, he earned a doctorate in International Law. The rise of Nazism forced him to leave Germany in 1933. After spending four years in London, in 1937 he moved permanently to the United States, where he became a university professor as well as a freelance writer and business guru. In 1943 he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. He taught at New York University as a Professor of Management from 1950 to 1971. From 1971 to his death he was the Clarke Professor of Social Science and Management at Claremont Graduate University.
The son of a high level civil servant in the Habsburg empire, Drucker was born in the chocolate capital of Austria, in a small village named Kaasgraben (now a suburb of Vienna, part of the 19th district, Döbling). Following the defeat of Austria-Hungary in World War I, there were few opportunities for employment in Vienna so after finishing school he went to Germany, first working in banking and then in journalism. While in Germany, he earned a doctorate in International Law. The rise of Nazism forced him to leave Germany in 1933. After spending four years in London, in 1937 he moved permanently to the United States, where he became a university professor as well as a freelance writer and business guru. In 1943 he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. He taught at New York University as a Professor of Management from 1950 to 1971. From 1971 to his death he was the Clarke Professor of Social Science and Management at Claremont Graduate University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 8, 2013
My father was an avid reader, particularly fond of books on philosophy and management theory. `The Age of Discontinuity' was one of those books I borrowed from his collection (along with Alvin Toffler’s and Marshall McLuhan’s), while studying marketing in the mid 70's. I was wowed and have been a Peter F Drucker fan ever since. I was reminded of my dad when I saw it in my amazon suggestions and ordered it (those amazon guys are good). I thought I'd see how good Drucker's predictions had held up. (I'm going to look back in on Toffler and McLuhan too.)
Originally published in 1969, a dog’s age, I quickly recalled Drucker’s basic arguments which he recaps succinctly in the 1978 preface. His style too as remembered, straight to the point and not overburdened in statistics or economic theory, plain language. What comes through too in the later 1983 preface and 1992 introduction is to be reminded that Drucker is ten times smarter than your average bear, and he reminds you of that at every opportunity. He’s more often proved right. Peter F. Drucker was good at what he did, creator of the Management By Objectives theory, a pioneer of business education and frequent consultant to the Fortune 500 and whole countries alike.
To brief, Drucker proposed that four converging trends will create a realignment, a discontinuity, of existing economic, political and social structure:
Number One is technology, "The growth industries of the last decades of the twentieth century are likely to emerge from knowledge discoveries of the first fifty or sixty years of this century; quantum physics, the understanding of atomic and molecular structure, biochemistry..." (PF Drucker 1969) How could it be argued any other way in the face of the previous 150 years, as Drucker extensively accounts. Although his examples have yet to reach anywhere near their potential, it is coming, in agriculture, medicine, manufacturing and energy production. Soon too, we will realize a quantum leap toward quantum computing and effective nanotechnologies, the promise of unforeseen developments and moral dilemmas in concert.
As far as what I’ll coin as clinical issues, what is socially tolerable or effective, Drucker dedicates little attention to morality and what outcomes might hold per such until the end the book. It gave me the impression of it being outside his original premise, and therefore left for the screaming of critics. He’d represent just the facts as he saw them, unapologetically in his no nonsense style.
The second trend is the growth of multinational corporations, and their override of national interests. The rise of a true global economy, and shadow economy, argued as multinationals being best equipped, and positioned to take greatest advantage -"...We still act as if we lived in an `international economy', in which separate nations are the units... Fundamentally as different from one another in their economy as in their language or law or cultural tradition. But imperceptibly there has emerged a world economy where common information generates the same economic appetites, aspirations and demands - cutting across national boundaries..." (PF Drucker 1969) The rise of multinationals was self-evident and well written about at the time, kind of a no brainer. Unique though was Drucker's re-examination of the most basic assumptions, asking more basic questions; speaking in terms of "appetites and aspirations", the foundations of consumerism, and consumer marketing.
The problem with multi-nationals (corporations in general) is left to their own device they will operate predictably in their best interests regardless of the law of a particular sovereignty, and even if those interests are to the detriment of public health and environment. (Just read Michael Moss’ ‘Salt, Sugar, Fat’, and it really drives this home.) You can’t let markets and industries have free reign. Legislation, oversight and enforcement are necessary evil in offset… I don’t know what Drucker, who died in 2005 at the age of ninety six, would say about that in light of the 2008 financial market collapse. He’d probably poo-poo the idea.
Thirdly, is the shift in the political matrix of social and economic life, "Every single social task of importance today is entrusted to a large institution..." (PFD) Sounds eerily prophetic of social media, facebook google, the internet and how we get our information, although he was at the time talking about government and traditional media. He also seemingly bemoans the growing doubt, the elemental lack of belief, his own strongly held lack of belief, whether government as an organizational entity could get the job done, "Everywhere there is rapid disenchantment with the biggest and fastest (growing) of these institutions, modern government, as cynicism (grows) regarding its ability to perform..." (PFD 1969) That one's scary, and he said a lot more about it. It's like he saw the Tea Party coming!
He too must have hated watching the explosion of government, although he's careful enough to tip toe around the welfare state, mentioning social security only once by name, likely he was closer to Ayn Rand than FDR. He never mentions Rand, he sticks to real world evidence and the problem at hand… "The purpose of government, in other words, is to govern. This as we have all learned in other institutions, is incompatible with "doing." Any attempt to combine governing with "doing" on a large scale, paralyzes decision making...They (the govt.) are not focused on "doing." They are not equipped for it." (PFD 1969)
Wow, I remember liking Rand all that, it was fun stuff to read, playing for a time between utopian and dystopian idealism then to libertarian, but I don't recall feeling like a fascist or maybe better said as anti-social back then, for my enthusiasm during the first reading of The Age of Discontinuity. It feels like it now.
Of course I grew up safely and decidedly middle class. I never had to worry about hunger, or homelessness, and therefore had the luxury to experiment with philosophy and political ideologies; one of the great bonuses of living in post WWII America. There’d always been food in the fridge; it didn’t matter whether I wore a red beret or Kaiser’s helmet. It’s probable I would have agreed with anything you indoctrinated, whatever you wanted me to say as long as the gravy train kept running. I would have saluted Mao Zedong if he could have delivered the goods. I think most people, all over the world, would do the same. Drucker understood that, it was all about delivering the goods. “An economy is, above all, defined by demand. Today the whole world, whatever its economic condition – and whatever political system in force in a given area – has one common demand schedule, one common set of economic values and preferences.” (PFD)
But ultimately, as he professed, no amount of intimidation or fear, no cult of personality can keep the wheels on the commie train, one that never really leaves the station – evidenced in the economy of modern day China and its explosive growth after a transformation to something closely resembling capitalism. It’s only a wonder when North Korea collapses. I think Drucker would have anticipated that too, as a probable and desirable outcome, as predictable of the natural effects of “economic values and preferences”, of unfulfilled consumer “appetites and aspirations”; free markets at work, better for all involved. Drucker was an expert on Eastern cultures having spent much time there.
I have moved farther left, grown comfortable with the idea of social security, and medicare, and medicaid. Preferring a speck more compassionate view than Drucker, who says they’re not bad ideas per se, but then goes on to explain in detail why they are. He points out the numbers will be upside down when the boomers come full to retirement, more takers than makers…
Once in a while we all need a leg up, especially the old, sick and poor; three things you don’t want to be in America. Of course I’m older and poorer now, and sicker, how else could I roll; I joined the AARP, we all need a voice more than ever, in light of the Citizens United decision, that money is free speech. I don’t think Drucker would have much problem with Citizens, believing industry and capital should have the loudest voice as holding the greatest interest. I also don't think Drucker was ever much of an FDR fan, him along with soc sec being mentioned but once as indicated in the index, I don’t remember seeing the passage. In honesty, I found myself skimming sections of his supporting arguments, taken as accepted and well-conceived. Drucker is never sloppy, as far as I could ever tell.
And finally four, there is Knowledge, "Knowledge, during the last few decades, has become the central capital, the cost center, the crucial resource of the economy. This changes labor forces and work, teaching and learning, and the meaning of knowledge and its politics..." But Drucker repeatedly makes the point that these specific spheres of activity are not important within themselves, it is the exploration of "Discontinuities", the disruptions of previous trends and influences that’s forms the common theme; understanding that sociological disruption as a seismologist understands an earthquake, below the crust, in the magma of society’s mind.
We are struggling mightily today within that necessity for a new work force, within a context of technical and educational realignment, a reality he described in depth. Although an element Drucker could not have foreseen would be the importance and opportunity of collaboration among individuals that comes with the capability to share heaps of info at light speed. He couldn't have imagined how ridiculously cheap and easy and truly far reaching it was to become, impacting every aspect of life, especially in the developing and third worlds.
Drucker cheered the “knowledge society”. “Historically, the men of knowledge have not held power, at least not in the west… (But) The learned are no longer poor, to the contrary they are true “Capitalists” in the knowledge society.” (PFD) Though, all is not roses for the men of knowledge. “Men of knowledge will find it hard to accept that the basic decisions on knowledge are political decisions and therefore not in their hands. They will find it even harder to swallow that we hold them responsible for these decisions, even though they do not control them… Indeed the men of knowledge are today where the businessman of the late nineteenth century (were) with the assumption morality was his “private affair”.” (PFD)
I get from his tone he didn’t believe we’d get it right. “It is naïve to expect the learned will accept such responsibility voluntarily… the learned will soon be challenged to take responsibility. It is highly probable that the next great wave of criticism, indignation and revolt in the United States will be provoked by the arrogance of the learned.” What can you say to that?
To Drucker it could all be reduced to management theory, the polity only interfered; a real life version of Isaac Asimov’s character Hari Seldon, creator of ‘mathematical sociology’, in ‘The Foundation’ sci-fi series. (I don’t think Drucker would like me saying that, I don’t think he much liked social scientists considering his comments on Project Camelot.) Like Hari Seldon, Drucker worked in solitude, a one man show. But also oddly unlike Hari, Drucker never embraced technology. He never used a computer or even word processor, it was all written down on yellow pads, and the manuscripts transcribed by his secretary on a typewriter, or so the story goes. He had no other employees, just the secretary, the yellow pad, stacks of books and periodicals, and a client list that would make any consultant drool.
Overall, Drucker acquits himself very well. I also now understand that I only thought I understood what he was saying, way back when, as a twenty one year old student. I think I get it better now. It was, begrudgingly and with some effort, worth the read, for me...for sentimental value.
My father left all assortment of books lying around when I was a kid, stacks of them, and promoted curiosity and their consumption in clandestine ways. It was fun to read, he convinced me as artfully as Twain framed the joys of painting a fence. It worked and got me reading, one of the greatest gifts you can give a child... That and how to eat right; you know fruit and vegetables, be careful of too much red meat and dairy. Oh yeah, floss every day…
My father died last year. I miss not being able to talk to him about stuff like this...
Originally published in 1969, a dog’s age, I quickly recalled Drucker’s basic arguments which he recaps succinctly in the 1978 preface. His style too as remembered, straight to the point and not overburdened in statistics or economic theory, plain language. What comes through too in the later 1983 preface and 1992 introduction is to be reminded that Drucker is ten times smarter than your average bear, and he reminds you of that at every opportunity. He’s more often proved right. Peter F. Drucker was good at what he did, creator of the Management By Objectives theory, a pioneer of business education and frequent consultant to the Fortune 500 and whole countries alike.
To brief, Drucker proposed that four converging trends will create a realignment, a discontinuity, of existing economic, political and social structure:
Number One is technology, "The growth industries of the last decades of the twentieth century are likely to emerge from knowledge discoveries of the first fifty or sixty years of this century; quantum physics, the understanding of atomic and molecular structure, biochemistry..." (PF Drucker 1969) How could it be argued any other way in the face of the previous 150 years, as Drucker extensively accounts. Although his examples have yet to reach anywhere near their potential, it is coming, in agriculture, medicine, manufacturing and energy production. Soon too, we will realize a quantum leap toward quantum computing and effective nanotechnologies, the promise of unforeseen developments and moral dilemmas in concert.
As far as what I’ll coin as clinical issues, what is socially tolerable or effective, Drucker dedicates little attention to morality and what outcomes might hold per such until the end the book. It gave me the impression of it being outside his original premise, and therefore left for the screaming of critics. He’d represent just the facts as he saw them, unapologetically in his no nonsense style.
The second trend is the growth of multinational corporations, and their override of national interests. The rise of a true global economy, and shadow economy, argued as multinationals being best equipped, and positioned to take greatest advantage -"...We still act as if we lived in an `international economy', in which separate nations are the units... Fundamentally as different from one another in their economy as in their language or law or cultural tradition. But imperceptibly there has emerged a world economy where common information generates the same economic appetites, aspirations and demands - cutting across national boundaries..." (PF Drucker 1969) The rise of multinationals was self-evident and well written about at the time, kind of a no brainer. Unique though was Drucker's re-examination of the most basic assumptions, asking more basic questions; speaking in terms of "appetites and aspirations", the foundations of consumerism, and consumer marketing.
The problem with multi-nationals (corporations in general) is left to their own device they will operate predictably in their best interests regardless of the law of a particular sovereignty, and even if those interests are to the detriment of public health and environment. (Just read Michael Moss’ ‘Salt, Sugar, Fat’, and it really drives this home.) You can’t let markets and industries have free reign. Legislation, oversight and enforcement are necessary evil in offset… I don’t know what Drucker, who died in 2005 at the age of ninety six, would say about that in light of the 2008 financial market collapse. He’d probably poo-poo the idea.
Thirdly, is the shift in the political matrix of social and economic life, "Every single social task of importance today is entrusted to a large institution..." (PFD) Sounds eerily prophetic of social media, facebook google, the internet and how we get our information, although he was at the time talking about government and traditional media. He also seemingly bemoans the growing doubt, the elemental lack of belief, his own strongly held lack of belief, whether government as an organizational entity could get the job done, "Everywhere there is rapid disenchantment with the biggest and fastest (growing) of these institutions, modern government, as cynicism (grows) regarding its ability to perform..." (PFD 1969) That one's scary, and he said a lot more about it. It's like he saw the Tea Party coming!
He too must have hated watching the explosion of government, although he's careful enough to tip toe around the welfare state, mentioning social security only once by name, likely he was closer to Ayn Rand than FDR. He never mentions Rand, he sticks to real world evidence and the problem at hand… "The purpose of government, in other words, is to govern. This as we have all learned in other institutions, is incompatible with "doing." Any attempt to combine governing with "doing" on a large scale, paralyzes decision making...They (the govt.) are not focused on "doing." They are not equipped for it." (PFD 1969)
Wow, I remember liking Rand all that, it was fun stuff to read, playing for a time between utopian and dystopian idealism then to libertarian, but I don't recall feeling like a fascist or maybe better said as anti-social back then, for my enthusiasm during the first reading of The Age of Discontinuity. It feels like it now.
Of course I grew up safely and decidedly middle class. I never had to worry about hunger, or homelessness, and therefore had the luxury to experiment with philosophy and political ideologies; one of the great bonuses of living in post WWII America. There’d always been food in the fridge; it didn’t matter whether I wore a red beret or Kaiser’s helmet. It’s probable I would have agreed with anything you indoctrinated, whatever you wanted me to say as long as the gravy train kept running. I would have saluted Mao Zedong if he could have delivered the goods. I think most people, all over the world, would do the same. Drucker understood that, it was all about delivering the goods. “An economy is, above all, defined by demand. Today the whole world, whatever its economic condition – and whatever political system in force in a given area – has one common demand schedule, one common set of economic values and preferences.” (PFD)
But ultimately, as he professed, no amount of intimidation or fear, no cult of personality can keep the wheels on the commie train, one that never really leaves the station – evidenced in the economy of modern day China and its explosive growth after a transformation to something closely resembling capitalism. It’s only a wonder when North Korea collapses. I think Drucker would have anticipated that too, as a probable and desirable outcome, as predictable of the natural effects of “economic values and preferences”, of unfulfilled consumer “appetites and aspirations”; free markets at work, better for all involved. Drucker was an expert on Eastern cultures having spent much time there.
I have moved farther left, grown comfortable with the idea of social security, and medicare, and medicaid. Preferring a speck more compassionate view than Drucker, who says they’re not bad ideas per se, but then goes on to explain in detail why they are. He points out the numbers will be upside down when the boomers come full to retirement, more takers than makers…
Once in a while we all need a leg up, especially the old, sick and poor; three things you don’t want to be in America. Of course I’m older and poorer now, and sicker, how else could I roll; I joined the AARP, we all need a voice more than ever, in light of the Citizens United decision, that money is free speech. I don’t think Drucker would have much problem with Citizens, believing industry and capital should have the loudest voice as holding the greatest interest. I also don't think Drucker was ever much of an FDR fan, him along with soc sec being mentioned but once as indicated in the index, I don’t remember seeing the passage. In honesty, I found myself skimming sections of his supporting arguments, taken as accepted and well-conceived. Drucker is never sloppy, as far as I could ever tell.
And finally four, there is Knowledge, "Knowledge, during the last few decades, has become the central capital, the cost center, the crucial resource of the economy. This changes labor forces and work, teaching and learning, and the meaning of knowledge and its politics..." But Drucker repeatedly makes the point that these specific spheres of activity are not important within themselves, it is the exploration of "Discontinuities", the disruptions of previous trends and influences that’s forms the common theme; understanding that sociological disruption as a seismologist understands an earthquake, below the crust, in the magma of society’s mind.
We are struggling mightily today within that necessity for a new work force, within a context of technical and educational realignment, a reality he described in depth. Although an element Drucker could not have foreseen would be the importance and opportunity of collaboration among individuals that comes with the capability to share heaps of info at light speed. He couldn't have imagined how ridiculously cheap and easy and truly far reaching it was to become, impacting every aspect of life, especially in the developing and third worlds.
Drucker cheered the “knowledge society”. “Historically, the men of knowledge have not held power, at least not in the west… (But) The learned are no longer poor, to the contrary they are true “Capitalists” in the knowledge society.” (PFD) Though, all is not roses for the men of knowledge. “Men of knowledge will find it hard to accept that the basic decisions on knowledge are political decisions and therefore not in their hands. They will find it even harder to swallow that we hold them responsible for these decisions, even though they do not control them… Indeed the men of knowledge are today where the businessman of the late nineteenth century (were) with the assumption morality was his “private affair”.” (PFD)
I get from his tone he didn’t believe we’d get it right. “It is naïve to expect the learned will accept such responsibility voluntarily… the learned will soon be challenged to take responsibility. It is highly probable that the next great wave of criticism, indignation and revolt in the United States will be provoked by the arrogance of the learned.” What can you say to that?
To Drucker it could all be reduced to management theory, the polity only interfered; a real life version of Isaac Asimov’s character Hari Seldon, creator of ‘mathematical sociology’, in ‘The Foundation’ sci-fi series. (I don’t think Drucker would like me saying that, I don’t think he much liked social scientists considering his comments on Project Camelot.) Like Hari Seldon, Drucker worked in solitude, a one man show. But also oddly unlike Hari, Drucker never embraced technology. He never used a computer or even word processor, it was all written down on yellow pads, and the manuscripts transcribed by his secretary on a typewriter, or so the story goes. He had no other employees, just the secretary, the yellow pad, stacks of books and periodicals, and a client list that would make any consultant drool.
Overall, Drucker acquits himself very well. I also now understand that I only thought I understood what he was saying, way back when, as a twenty one year old student. I think I get it better now. It was, begrudgingly and with some effort, worth the read, for me...for sentimental value.
My father left all assortment of books lying around when I was a kid, stacks of them, and promoted curiosity and their consumption in clandestine ways. It was fun to read, he convinced me as artfully as Twain framed the joys of painting a fence. It worked and got me reading, one of the greatest gifts you can give a child... That and how to eat right; you know fruit and vegetables, be careful of too much red meat and dairy. Oh yeah, floss every day…
My father died last year. I miss not being able to talk to him about stuff like this...
February 7, 2017
Գիրքը Դրաքերը գրել է 1967-68 թթ.երին: Բայց բոլոր թեմաները, որոնց նա անդրադարձել է, այսօր արդիական են մեզ մոտ Հայաստանում:
Խնդիրները, որոնց արևմուտքը առնչվել է 60-ականներին, մենք նոր-նոր հանդիպում ենք: ԱՅսինքն մոտ 60 տարի հետ ենք առնվազն աշխարհի տենդենցներից:
Թեմաները խայտաբղետ են` տնտեսության կարևոր ճյուղերի քննարկումից մինչև կառավարությունների դերի և նշանակության վերլուծություն, դպրոցի և համալսարանի խնդիրներից մինչև մարդու-աշխատակցի դերը կազմակերպությունների ներսում:
Դրաքերը օրինակ է բերում ճապոնական զկյանս աշխատանքի նկարագիրը, դրա բոլոր դրական և բացասական հետևանքներով:
Շատ հետաքրքիր է արտաքին ներդրումներով տնտեսության զարգացման անհեռանկարության հիմնավորումը: Հեղինակը ապացուցում է, որ արտաքին ներդրումներով երկիրը չի զարգանա:
Հեղինակը նախազգուշացնում է մեզ կազմակերպությունների աճող կամայականություններից հանրության կյանքում, թե ինչպես են նրանք տարբեր սոցիալական խրախուսանքներով զրկում մարդկանց ակտիվ քաղաքացիական դիրքորոշումներից և ազատություններից, փոխարինում պետության գործառույթները:
Շատ հետաքրքիր է նաև գիտելիքի և համալսարանների ապագայի քննարկումը, թե ինչպես պետք է մարդը կրթվի ամբողջ կյանքում, թե ինչու է ուսումը այսքան երկարատև ու դասավանդվող առարկաները անպիտան:
Թեմաները շատ են և հետաքրքիր: Պետք է ուղղակի կարդալ և մտածել,եզրահանգումներ անել:
Գոնե 60 տարի անց:
Խնդիրները, որոնց արևմուտքը առնչվել է 60-ականներին, մենք նոր-նոր հանդիպում ենք: ԱՅսինքն մոտ 60 տարի հետ ենք առնվազն աշխարհի տենդենցներից:
Թեմաները խայտաբղետ են` տնտեսության կարևոր ճյուղերի քննարկումից մինչև կառավարությունների դերի և նշանակության վերլուծություն, դպրոցի և համալսարանի խնդիրներից մինչև մարդու-աշխատակցի դերը կազմակերպությունների ներսում:
Դրաքերը օրինակ է բերում ճապոնական զկյանս աշխատանքի նկարագիրը, դրա բոլոր դրական և բացասական հետևանքներով:
Շատ հետաքրքիր է արտաքին ներդրումներով տնտեսության զարգացման անհեռանկարության հիմնավորումը: Հեղինակը ապացուցում է, որ արտաքին ներդրումներով երկիրը չի զարգանա:
Հեղինակը նախազգուշացնում է մեզ կազմակերպությունների աճող կամայականություններից հանրության կյանքում, թե ինչպես են նրանք տարբեր սոցիալական խրախուսանքներով զրկում մարդկանց ակտիվ քաղաքացիական դիրքորոշումներից և ազատություններից, փոխարինում պետության գործառույթները:
Շատ հետաքրքիր է նաև գիտելիքի և համալսարանների ապագայի քննարկումը, թե ինչպես պետք է մարդը կրթվի ամբողջ կյանքում, թե ինչու է ուսումը այսքան երկարատև ու դասավանդվող առարկաները անպիտան:
Թեմաները շատ են և հետաքրքիր: Պետք է ուղղակի կարդալ և մտածել,եզրահանգումներ անել:
Գոնե 60 տարի անց:
November 30, 2019
Quite number of insights in here on many of the major revolutionary changes of the 20th Century in business, culture, government, on the management and use of knowledge, on marketing and on education.
But whenever I read anything by Drucker I can't help but think of the famous quote about Wagner's music being "better than it sounds." There's something about Drucker's writing that makes him hard to read.
But whenever I read anything by Drucker I can't help but think of the famous quote about Wagner's music being "better than it sounds." There's something about Drucker's writing that makes him hard to read.
December 11, 2017
Yesterday, I finished “The Age of Discontinuity” by Peter F. Drucker (1969©). This book took me almost two months to complete because it is so overwhelming. I found I could only read a few dozen pages at most before I had to stop, pause and think about what Drucker was saying. It is almost literally one of Bacon’s few books “to be chewed and digested.”
It’s important to remember this work was penned in the late 1960’s!! Yet, it is as fresh and descriptive today as if Drucker is sitting across a table discussing modern history with you (me).
The book seeks to review (and examine) four main “discontinuities” in our civilization: new technology, the world’s economy, the “political matrix of social and economic life”, and (most importantly) changes in knowledge (and their effects on teaching, learning, labor, work and politics).
Here is a sampling of quotes to illustrate the power of his ideas: (on American pluralism) – …a pluralist society guarantees freedom from domination by any single group. … In fact, the danger in pluralism, as history teaches, is not domination by this or that interest group; it is collapse into indecision and into a stalemate of competing “countervailing powers.”
(On knowledge) – This demand, in turn reflects the basic fact that knowledge has become productive. The systematic and purposeful acquisition of information and its systematic application, rather than “science” or “technology,” are emerging as the new foundation for work, productivity, and effort throughout this world. (Sounds like the prediction of the coming of Google!)
Knowledge work does not lead to a “disappearance of work.” …Knowledge work, like all productive work, creates its own demand. And the demand is apparently unlimited.
(On educational and leadership testing) – No one test can possibly identify today who will be leadership material twenty years later. For we do not and cannot know what will be needed twenty years hence.
My copy of this book is the hardbound version and roughly 400 pages. I would estimate I have well over 50 side notes scribbled on the pages and probably a good quarter of the book hi-lighted. This is certainly a work I will return to again – perhaps next time to try to swallow whole, but certainly to nibble away at again and again as its digestion helps me grow.
It’s important to remember this work was penned in the late 1960’s!! Yet, it is as fresh and descriptive today as if Drucker is sitting across a table discussing modern history with you (me).
The book seeks to review (and examine) four main “discontinuities” in our civilization: new technology, the world’s economy, the “political matrix of social and economic life”, and (most importantly) changes in knowledge (and their effects on teaching, learning, labor, work and politics).
Here is a sampling of quotes to illustrate the power of his ideas: (on American pluralism) – …a pluralist society guarantees freedom from domination by any single group. … In fact, the danger in pluralism, as history teaches, is not domination by this or that interest group; it is collapse into indecision and into a stalemate of competing “countervailing powers.”
(On knowledge) – This demand, in turn reflects the basic fact that knowledge has become productive. The systematic and purposeful acquisition of information and its systematic application, rather than “science” or “technology,” are emerging as the new foundation for work, productivity, and effort throughout this world. (Sounds like the prediction of the coming of Google!)
Knowledge work does not lead to a “disappearance of work.” …Knowledge work, like all productive work, creates its own demand. And the demand is apparently unlimited.
(On educational and leadership testing) – No one test can possibly identify today who will be leadership material twenty years later. For we do not and cannot know what will be needed twenty years hence.
My copy of this book is the hardbound version and roughly 400 pages. I would estimate I have well over 50 side notes scribbled on the pages and probably a good quarter of the book hi-lighted. This is certainly a work I will return to again – perhaps next time to try to swallow whole, but certainly to nibble away at again and again as its digestion helps me grow.
June 4, 2016
With difficulty I waded through this essay Drucker. Essay, because it is a form of literary-scientific, presenting the point of view of the author. In turn the "difficult" because the arguments of the author is quite long-winded and could be reduced at least by half without affecting the substance of the content. Drucker, under the code name "The Age of Discontinuity" describes the forces of changes that shape the society of tomorrow. Tomorrow, we live in today, because the author wrote the book in 1968. Interestingly, many of the comments Drucker does not become obsolete, even though the socio-economic background has changed drastically.
I particularly recommend to your attention a chapter on the impact and importance of the institution, on our civilization and strikingly current description of the effects of the explosion of new technologies.
Is it worth still reach for the book, which describes the time before the more than half century? Certainly yes, although the book is not for everyone.
I particularly recommend to your attention a chapter on the impact and importance of the institution, on our civilization and strikingly current description of the effects of the explosion of new technologies.
Is it worth still reach for the book, which describes the time before the more than half century? Certainly yes, although the book is not for everyone.
August 21, 2015
Hard to find a more concise and explanatory book to describe how the modern and economy and society got what it is today.
The chapters near the end on second careers and early and continuing education both heartfelt and full of criticism of the current system.
Drucker would no doubt be appalled with how elitist we have become in our hiring practices.
No author in management will speak to writers like drucker, which is why he is still so often quoted and remains so relevant.
The chapters near the end on second careers and early and continuing education both heartfelt and full of criticism of the current system.
Drucker would no doubt be appalled with how elitist we have become in our hiring practices.
No author in management will speak to writers like drucker, which is why he is still so often quoted and remains so relevant.
March 24, 2012
كتابٌ جدير بالقراءة : الكتاب الحادي عشر في ترتيب كتب مؤسس علم الإدارة 'بيتر داركر ' التي يبلغ عددها 42 كتاباً.
عصر الانقطاع (عصر التغيير) The Age of Discontinuity) 1968) : يتحدث عن اقتصاد المعرفة، ومجتمع المعرفة ويسلط الضوء على أهم العوامل التي تؤثر في الإقتصاد العالمي وتبني مجتمع الغد.
Read
July 29, 2012How sustainable is a business corporation from new technologies, globalization, cultural pluralism, and knowledge capital challenges.
August 2, 2014
Genius, yet Drucker's idealized world of the knowledge worker becoming that dominating did not arrive yet, certainly not everywhere. But it could.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews