Managers in the Era of “Leader Phobia”
Peter Drucker’s Management Chapter 30: What Makes a Manager?
Since 2022, four experts from Hyundai Motor Group and other sectors have gathered online every Monday at 7:00 AM to read and discuss Peter Drucker’s Management. This post is based on our discussion from September 15, 2025, regarding Chapter 30.
Introduction
In Chapter 29, we explored the “reason for existence” of a manager. The natural follow-up question is: “What makes a manager?”
We live in an age of “star CEOs” like Elon Musk and Jensen Huang. However, the achievements of great enterprises are never the result of a single founder’s genius alone. As discussed previously, success is made possible by the countless “managers” who execute that vision on the ground and translate it into value.
Yet, are there enough of these capable managers around us? The most concerning phenomenon today is “Leader Phobia.” A recent survey revealed that even top-performing employees at Hyundai Motor are increasingly reluctant to become team leaders. In the past, a team leader was simply the person who knew the team’s task best. Today, they must lead diverse members who may possess greater technical expertise than themselves. Caught between the demands of Gen Z subordinates and constant performance pressure from above, many talented individuals now prefer to remain specialists rather than become “ineffective administrators.”
In this chaos of leadership crises and increasing uncertainty, how can we secure real managers? More importantly, who do we define as a manager, and what should their role be?
Key takeaways from the Chapter
The Criterion is “Responsibility,” Not “Power”
We often think of a manager as a “boss who gets results through others.” However, Drucker argues that the criteria for a manager should be determined by the nature of their work and their responsibilities, not by whether they have direct reports. For instance, a senior AI researcher—an Individual Contributor—who makes a massive independent contribution is strictly a member of the management team. The era of proving one’s status by the number of subordinates is over.
The Paradox of Turning Experts into Ineffective Administrators
In traditional organizations, the only way to receive higher compensation is through promotion to a management role. This often forces brilliant specialists into administrative tasks they despise, eroding the organization’s core competencies. Drucker argues that just as a prima donna in an opera naturally earns more than the stage manager, a star specialist should be able to earn more than a manager in a knowledge-based organization. A system that forces management roles onto experts solely for compensation only produces “ineffective administrators.”
The Importance of Upward and Sideways Communication
If a manager is defined only by their subordinates, they become trapped in internal administration, leading to organizational “silos.” A true manager must focus on upward and sideways communication to ensure their output aligns with the entire organization. They must act as a “translator,” converting organizational goals into a language that specialists can understand and integrate.
Discussion Insights: The Reality of the Manager We Are Missing
Efficient Supervisors vs. Responsible Managers
We agreed that “function and responsibility” must be the benchmarks for a manager. A “field supervisor” who merely meets assigned KPIs is not a manager. Such supervisors often lose sight of higher-level goals, buried under raw metrics. In contrast, a true manager contemplates how their work contributes to the performance of the whole enterprise and takes personal responsibility for their self-set goals.
Drucker’s “contribution” is not about fragmented individual performance. If an individual’s brilliance does not connect to the organization’s mission, it is not a managerial contribution. The virtues of a manager are not just diligence or tenacity, but a systemic perspective.
Expert vs. Manager
While an expert focuses on producing the best output within a defined scope, a manager is responsible for ensuring that knowledge is applied to meet the organization’s objectives.
This distinction is strikingly clear in the entertainment industry. Companies like CJ ENM rely heavily on a small group of talented creators (experts). However, these creators often prefer to speak their own unique language and have little interest in corporate systems.
A common mistake is to hire these star creators and give them high managerial titles. However, turning them into managers is incredibly difficult. Wanting a show to be a “hit” is entirely different from building a sustainable “system” that ensures long-term competitiveness. Management itself is an independent professional domain. To ensure sustainability regardless of whether a specific star stays or leaves, firms must implement a Dual Track system: treat star creators like “prima donnas,” but leave the “system design” to the professional managers.
Conclusion: Beyond Hierarchy, Focus on ‘Function’
Our conclusion is that a manager is someone who defines performance in the context of the whole, rather than being buried in assigned tasks. The moment one willingly shoulders that responsibility is the moment they truly step onto the path of a manager.