Doing Research Like Drucker and Einstein
Albert Einstein and Peter Drucker were rare geniuses, and both left a trail of success supported by significant achievement. Both are widely ranked among the greatest and most influential in their fields. Yet neither followed the models of scientific research which are sought by most universities. Drucker, known as the “Father of Modern Management,” did not use the synthetic research method promoted by academia. As a result, many academics do not accept Drucker’s methods of analytical research but insist on the synthetic research whereby hypotheses are established and then proven or disproven for general conclusions and theory. The same with Einstein.
Like Einstein, Drucker did not arrive at his theories in a laboratory surrounded by microscopes and computers, but in a different kind of laboratory. Einstein’s most productive period was in the single year of 1905, during which he produced and published four ground-breaking papers, which eventually won him the Nobel Prize for theoretical physics in 1921. None of the four were conceived and written in the sterile atmosphere of a typical laboratory, or by the synthetic methods desired by universities. Rather, they were accomplished while Einstein was occupied in his first job after obtaining his PhD at the University of Zurich. This position, as a patent examiner at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, was an entry level position. Moreover, he was passed over for promotion while doing this research which won for him a Nobel Prize!
The Development of the Theory of Relativity
Einstein himself described the development of one of his most famous theories, the Theory of Relativity, as conceived while he imagined himself traveling along side of a beam of light. Remembering that Drucker’s PhD was a law degree, it is possible that it was Einstein who influenced Drucker with examples of developing methods of reasoning and thinking which resulted in Drucker’s theories of management practice. Drucker observed ongoing management operations. He described this as “his laboratory.” He used his analysis and the development of what he observed to develop his theories by observation.
Einstein Revealed His Methods
Although sometimes Drucker sometimes gave only clues to his methods, Einstein described his fully. In a letter to the London Times in 1919, Einstein wrote that his methods came from “Theories of Principle.” He stated that these “were derived from the analytical, not the synthetic method.” Their starting-point and foundation were 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.” Drucker was only ten years old at the time and probably did not then know sufficient English to read this letter when it was written. However, he did refer to Einstein during his career, and it is possible that he read the article in English later.
Synthetic research starts with the known and proceeds to the unknown. The researcher starts with an assumed hypothesis and tests it to prove or disprove it by examination of a sufficient number of examples and testing mathematically for a significant difference.
Analytical research starts with the unknown and proceeds to the known. There is no hypothesis. 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.” This is how both Einstein and Drucker arrived at their theories. The theories developed by these two geniuses did not start with hypotheses and their resulting theories did not evolve from scientific research in the commonly understood process in which many sources are surveyed and analyzed through mathematical techniques and equations, but rather from a basic model:
1. Observation, either real (or in some of Einstein’s work, imagined)
2. Analysis of the observation
3. Conclusions
4. Theory Based on These Conclusions
Ed Cooke, a Grand Master of Memory, and a graduate of Oxford University as well as the author of several books on memory wrote that there were two ways of doing brain research: “The first is the way that empirical psychology does it, which is that you look from the outside and take a load of measurements on a lot of different people. The other way follows from the logic that a system’s optimal performance can tell you something about its design.”
Cooke’s description of the latter method describes how both Einstein and Drucker focused on the powers of ordinary observation and applied analytical reasoning leading to practical results.
Unexpected Insights at an Academic Conference
I found insights into the value of Drucker’s methods about thirty years ago. I was invited to participate as a member of a panel held during an academic conference. The purpose of the panel was to discuss the influence of textbooks on management practice, or more accurately the lack thereof. During this discussion, and before an audience of marketing and management professors, one question was directed precisely at me as I was the only one of the five authors on the panel to have written both professional books for practicing managers and textbooks for classroom work with students. The question I was asked was why it was that textbooks seemed to follow established management practices but only professional or “trade” books seemed to be on the cutting edge to provide new insights.
I responded that “The writers of textbooks must bring together research from many sources to confirm the main points or theories they discuss. In many cases, there are also alternate theories to present regarding the various methods proposed for practice. To add the time needed for the textbook writer to do the research his textbook, must be added the time for the researcher to conduct not only this necessary research, but to describe both the research and the results in one or more articles, and to find suitable academic journals for publication for both his articles and realizing that this applies to the research done by others which are cited. For a top research journal, this can take many months before acceptance. After the textbook is published and used in the classroom, textbooks are used to instruct students. It may take several years before these students are in senior management positions and able to practice what was taught. On the other hand, a professional book based on theory resulting from personal observations (analytical research) can much more quickly be applied to practice as it goes right into the hands of the reader who is may already be a practitioner and who put it to immediate use.”
More Insight from the Conference
Sometime later when preparing a lecture for doctorial students at the Peter Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management at Claremont Graduate University on the potential value of writing professional books for disseminating theory as Drucker did, I came across two unexpected facts. First, many of the most widely publicized theories of management reached practitioners through a book, making the information immediately available to the practitioner in this manner and that the same level of dissemination among practitioners rarely came from publication in research journals.
Well-known consumer behavior researcher, Jagdish Sheth, once revealed during a conference presentation that after more than 25 years of research he had recently written an article published in the Wall Street Journal about which he received several hundred responses from practitioners. In contrast, after many articles published in leading research journals which had resulted in academic fame, he had received a small number queries from other academics, and none from practitioners.
Not surprisingly response from professional books included 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).
Of course, there were many articles published in research journals on these topics, but these were usually after professional books had already been published and they had already been put into practice and were well known and in common discussion by business professionals.
Drucker’s Methods and Thinking
Drucker did not start with synthetic mathematical formulae into which data was inserted to determine what was to be done but used his powers of observation and reasoning in determining conclusions for theory and then further testing this theory as he saw it applied.
Although Drucker did not describe his methods like Einstein, Drucker’s thinking processes, frequently dismissed by those employing only synthetic research, were a part of the mental arsenal for his research and should not be ignored. I cannot state mathematical equations he used nor his favorite means of testing for significant differences, because he used none. Still, if we can understand his analytical methods, we may apply the same in our own research, problem solving, decision making, and in assisting other practitioners through application of the results of our research.
