PART III: A POST-KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY?

In this last installment of my newsletter on knowledge work and society, I’ll summarize the key points previously made and discuss the challenges we face in our new knowledge society – or perhaps we can now refer to it as a post-knowledge society. Perhaps knowledge is no longer the driver of productivity, status, and function, but rather wisdom is the key for individuals to find meaning and purpose.

How We Got Here

As we learned previously, Peter Drucker considered productivity as the key to establishing a functioning society of organizations. In his view, the productivity of industrial capitalism (driven by scientific management) prevented Marxism from taking hold in the United States and Western Europe in the early twentieth century. Not only did industrial productivity lead to economic gains, but it also resulted in upward social mobility for manual labor. Whereas factory workers were viewed as second-class citizens by the late 1800s, they garnered both social status and function by the mid-1900s. As economies shifted from industrial to knowledge work, Drucker firmly believed that productivity would once again be key to providing status and function for these new workers and would be instrumental in ensuring a free society of functioning organizations. Yet, as we touched on before, this new knowledge society presented challenges.

·???????? Productivity: As discussed in the first installment of this newsletter, we continue to measure knowledge worker productivity in the same ways that we measured industrial output (units, quantity, etc.). We continue to wrestle with defining productivity, deciding who defines it, and how best to measure it. Moreover, a lack of autonomy and trust in organizations does not help.

·???????? Status and Function: Drucker emphasized that knowledge workers could not be managed the same way as industrial workers; they need to be motivated, not monitored (Drucker,1999). Both micromanagement and lack of mentoring or leadership can lead to worker disengagement, a new form of what Marx termed ‘alienation’.

·???????? Social Tensions: Drawing on Marx’s theory of capitalism, Drucker called attention to the very real possibility of class conflict between not the “capitalist” and “worker”, but between an educated ruling elite of knowledge workers and a larger majority of under- and uneducated non-knowledge workers. This possibility for social disorder weighed heavily on Drucker, and we see other commentators weigh in on this topic (Greenberg, Padhi and Smit, 2024).

Where We Are Now

Drucker wrote his last published works in the years just before his death in 2005.Twenty years later, we find ourselves in a society much different from the knowledge society he wrote about. In many ways, we face what we might call a “post-knowledge society.” Here are some of the present challenges confronting us:

·???????? Redefining Knowledge and Knowledge Work: Drucker was a scholar who was interested in technology and its impact on work, culture, and society over history. But in many ways, AI currently forces us to not just redefine technology’s impact on work, but the very nature of knowledge itself. Drucker contemplated the shifting definition of knowledge in the 1950s from “cause to configuration” (Drucker, 1957, p. 4). In this same work, he warned of the changing relationship between knowledge and power; knowledge was increasingly associated with deadly power, such as nuclear weapons, that could destroy society.

?

Today, AI’s role in changing knowledge work means that “knowledge” is less about numbers and data and much more about judgment, consideration of context, and recognition of unintended consequences of decisions. In other words, an increased respect for multiple intelligences and knowledges of different kinds. Drucker’s concern with an understanding of knowledge as a changing, often disjointed collection of shards of information that may seem unrelated is even more important today. Crucial decisions involving hiring, training, and leading people require not just the “knowledge” that is captured by AI, but the human ability to discern and judge with a sense of context and purpose.

?

·???????? Redefining Status and Function: Our post-knowledge society requires us to think about the nature of status and function because its importance is, perhaps, even greater. Previous technological revolutions moved rather slowly, and organizations had time to retrain people for new positions, or at least be prepared for obsolescence of job categories. That is no longer the case. The rapidity of AI advancement means that even the most prescient experts in the field cannot predict where the technology will move next (Thanisch, E., Smith, G., and Papadopoulos, M., 2025). Previously “safe” or even prestigious knowledge jobs, such as positions in the tech sector, are becoming vulnerable to some form of replacement or modification (The Economic Times, 2025).

?

And it is not just technology that is driving the redefinition of status and function. In the United States, the very function (and purpose) of many federal workers is being called into question. People who found meaning in their work providing aid to sick people in foreign countries, counseling elderly people regarding retirement benefits, and working with veteran’s groups, have now lost their function (job). Worse yet, their very status as a government worker is being demeaned, creating an entire class of outsiders who no longer are part of society (Fields, 2025). Drucker warned that this was incredibly dangerous, and fueled social and political disruption (Drucker, 1942). If knowledge work no longer provides a sense of status and function because it is changing so dramatically, we as a society will need to find other ways for people to feel that they are valued and are contributing.

·???????? Ownership of Production (Knowledge): AI forces us to think about who owns knowledge. Drucker argued that, in a knowledge society, the workers owned the means of production (destroying Marx’s critique of industrial capitalism). Who owns knowledge in a world of Open AI (ChatGPT, etc.), where any information accessible on the internet can be scraped up, scrambled, and reconstructed into a new form? Creative artists have fought back against this form of property theft through strikes and other methods (Appel, Neelbauer, and Schweidel, 2023). Academic professionals are struggling to find ways to make their research more accessible without losing control of their knowledge and intellectual property (Chesterman, 2024). In this new post-knowledge society, where knowledge is in the public domain, how do we stimulate entrepreneurial activity and allow for creative control? How can we attract and retain talent if workers no longer have ownership of the means of production? This is an area of considerable challenge that will involve rethinking how knowledge is created and used.

·???????? Concentration of Wealth/Capital: Drucker was very concerned in the late 20th century with the increasing salary gap between executives and workers (Drucker, 2010). But he argued that society had moved beyond the early 1900s world of “capitalists” (Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, etc.) vs. workers. Marx’s world of capitalists vs. workers no longer existed. In Drucker’s view, wealth was increasingly owned by workers in the form of pensions and retirement programs (Drucker, 1976). Today, the ‘pension’ is an artifact of industrial capitalism, replaced by 401k programs.? We now live in a world not just grappling with income discrepancy, but with incredible wealth inequality (Clarke, 2025). Today’s global wealth inequalities are nearly on par with those that existed in Drucker’s capitalist world of the early 20th century (Qureshi, 2023). These new super billionaires have outsized influence on politics and society; Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in the world, runs the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for the United States Federal Government, and has been drastically reshaping the entire infrastructure and purpose of federal government (McNicholas, 2025). If we face a new world where knowledge work no longer provides upward mobility (or only limited upward mobility at best), we will see increasing social disruption and turmoil.

·???????? Access to Knowledge and Technology: As Hamilton Mann notes, technological developments are not inherently positive; they often carry negative consequences. One such challenge presented by our post-knowledge society is the digital divide: the division of the world into haves and have-nots according to who has access to knowledge and technology and who does not. This divide can exacerbate existing inequalities between nations and even within countries (Mann, 2024, p. 6). For example, rural areas in the United States with limited broadband access cannot reap the benefits of innovations in knowledge acquisition and speed of data analysis (Plackett, 2022). Just as those left behind in the transition from industrial capitalism to a post-capitalist society presented a social problem, those left behind in the digital post-knowledge society will see themselves as cast offs who do not belong.

?

A Post-Knowledge Society that values Wisdom?

It is too early to create a list of solutions for our new post-knowledge society. But we do know that it will need a great deal of wisdom more than knowledge. Decision making will require a value-based approach that considers ethics and larger social impacts of the choices we make. The new society calls for individuals who can evaluate consequences, appreciate shared norms and values, and balance a respect for individual freedom with the concerns of the greater good. We will have to redefine knowledge and knowledge work, as well as status and function. We will need to think through the intricacies and legal challenges of knowledge ownership, and recognize the social and political implications of increasing concentration of wealth and capital. Finally, we must strive for equal access to knowledge in order to prevent digital cast-offs in this new society. ?In short, our new society must be a society grounded in wisdom.

?

References

Appel, G., Neelbauer, J., Schweidel, D.A. (2023). Generative AI has an intellectual property problem. Harvard Business Review, April 7. https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem.

Chesterman, S. (2024). Good models borrow, great models steal: intellectual property rights and generative AI. Policy and Society, February 12. https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/advance-article/doi/10.1093/polsoc/puae006/7606572.

Clarke, K. (2025). Meet the world’s 24 superbillionaires. The Wall Street Journal, February 25. https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/meet-superbillionaires-worlds-ultra-rich-cb7a797c.

Drucker, P.F. (1942). The future of industrial man. Transaction Publishers.

Drucker, P.F. (1957). Landmarks of tomorrow. Harper and Brothers.

Drucker, P.F. (1976). The unseen revolution: how pension fund socialism came to America. Harper and Rowe.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. Harper Business.

Drucker,?P.?F.?(2010).?The changing world of the executive.?Harvard Business Press.

Fields, A. (2025). Marjorie Taylor Greene: Federal workers ‘don’t deserve’ their paychecks. The Hill, February 26. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5165176-marjorie-taylor-greene-criticized/

Greenberg, E., Padhi, A., Smit, S. (2024). 2024 and beyond: Will it be economic stagnation or the advent of productivity-driven abundance? McKinsey & Company, January 12. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/2024-and-beyond-will-it-be-economic-stagnation-or-the-advent-of-productivity-driven-abundance.

Is 2025 a year of layoffs? Why Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and other U.S. tech giants have cut jobs? explained (2025). The Economic Times, February 7. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-meta-google-microsoft-amazon-facebook-workday-salesforce-stripe-layoffs-2025-is-2025-a-year-of-layoffs-us-tech-giants-have-cut-jobs/articleshow/118067140.cms?from=mdr.

Mann, H. (2024). Artificial integrity: the paths to leading AI toward a human centered future. Wiley.

McNicholas, C. (2025). Elon Musk’s DOGE takes over federal government. Economic Policy Institute, February 7. https://www.epi.org/blog/this-week-in-federal-policy-watch-elon-musks-doge-takes-over-federal-government/.

Plackett, B. (2022). The rural areas missing out on AI opportunities. Nature, October 22. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03212-7.

Qureshi, Z. (2023). Rising inequality: a major issue of our time. The Brookings Institution, May 16. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time/.

Thanisch, E., Smith, G., and Papadopoulos, M. (2025). ?AI’s uncertain future: bridging the gap between hype and human impact. Amplify, March 5. https://www.cutter.com/article/ai%E2%80%99s-uncertain-future-bridging-gap-between-hype-human-impact.