I fail to see the connection you draw between Drucker's teaching (eg What gets measured gets managed) and the poor management you see in corporations today. Have you ever read any of his articles/books? Can you point to anything particularly offensive?

Anyway Drucker wasn't a "management as a science" guy. He was an economist, or a microeconomist if you're nitpicking.

He certainly fits the mold of a microeconomist, but he revolutionized the study of management in the US. I don't think it's at all disingenuous to say that he drove management science to what it is today.

And to sum up his teachings as "What gets measured gets managed" is fairly trite when he wrote 30+ books on the subject of organizations and management.

So yes, I think "management as a science" guy is totally appropriate. Or as he is described so often on book covers - "Managment Guru"

My point is, we have MBA's coming out of programs which rely a great deal on the teaching of Peter Drucker, and companies are starting to wake up to the realization that Drucker's "Knowledge worker"/MBA doesn't possess the generalizable skills that he argued for.

Drucker argued for large corporations and layering, giving rise to the current bought of middle management that make up the majority of cruft in a today's organization.

And yes, I was required to read Drucker my my management classes.

eg means 'for example.' I wasn't summing 30+ books worth of economic thought.

And absent a control that article is still meaningless. Perhaps 1/100th of employees would feel engaged with their jobs today absent Drucker.

Additionally, the line "success depends on a company’s ability to unleash the initiative, imagination and passion of employees at all levels" made my head spin. I really don't wan the unleashed initiative of a lot of people--they're just not that bright, not that creative, and left to their own devices they'd be potentially counter-productive.