A Critique of Peter Drucker’s The Effective Executive

Peter Drucker’s The Effective Executive is one of those books everyone in management worships, but few actually question.

It teaches how to be efficient, focused, and decisive, but never asks why or for whom. Drucker assumes that organizations are inherently good, that being “effective” automatically means doing the right thing. But what if you’re effective at something destructive? What if the system itself is broken? His world was built on clear hierarchies and rational decisions, not the chaotic, politicized, short-term world of management today.

Drucker believes you can learn effectiveness through discipline and self-control, but that logic collapses when executives don’t even control their own purpose, shareholders and politics do. Modern managers aren’t executives; they’re bureaucrats, trapped in frameworks Drucker could never have imagined. Efficiency has replaced ethics, and productivity has replaced meaning. Drucker didn’t write a bad book, he wrote a timeless one that no longer fits its time.

Serbia is beyond saving

I see no hope for this country anymore.

A few months ago, I believed that maybe the students would win, that the protests could finally remove this leech of an incompetent, corrupt president and bring at least a shred of order to Serbia. But nothing changed. The protests may not be officially over, but they feel dead, and the same man still sits in power, more erratic and disconnected by the day.

Serbia is officially branded as a “flawed democracy” that is undergoing democratic backsliding, according to analyses from organizations like Freedom House, but even that sounds too generous. What we truly have is a dictatorship disguised as choice: one man surrounded by loyal, unqualified lackeys who hold positions they don’t understand, while real experts are pushed aside or leave the country entirely. The result is everywhere, collapsing buildings, broken roads, failed institutions, all built by people who were never meant to build anything.

Crime goes unpunished because the guilty all “know someone,” and that someone always leads back to the same circle of power. The media are captured, the old are brainwashed, and the young are leaving. The few who stay and try to create something, small startups, independent thinkers, are crushed before they can even start. Corruption keeps its monopoly, and in doing so, ensures that innovation, like hope, cannot survive here.

By not having innovation, you are damning your country to failure. The only current sources of income for Serbia are exploiting its natural resources and selling real estate, something that should be a basic human right, not an industry. There is nothing being created here. No new products, no unique services, nothing that carries the mark of Serbian ingenuity or progress.

Unlike developed economies such as the US, the UK, or France, which thrive on innovation, technology, and global exports, Serbia feels hollow, like an imitation of an economy rather than a real one. We survive by draining what we already have instead of building something new. Our resources will run out, and our real estate bubble keeps inflating, pricing ordinary people out of their own cities. Without innovation, creation, or ownership of ideas, a country isn’t growing, it’s just waiting to collapse.

FON is badly organized

For a Faculty of Organizational Sciences, FON seems to have forgotten the meaning of the word.

What follows isn’t just student frustration, it’s a reflection of how a university that teaches management consistently fails to manage itself.

The academic year after the students’ protests has been absurdly managed, eight months without classes, followed by six back-to-back exam periods and no real breaks. The dean publicly “supported” the protests, but his actions said otherwise, online lectures resumed despite widespread opposition, and students were treated like obstacles, not participants in the system. Some professors even blamed the students for the disruption, as if demanding a better future for our country was a mistake.

Instead of standing with their students, they used fear, claiming FON would lose funding or programs if we continued to protest, without any proof. The real issue isn’t the protest; it’s the refusal to take responsibility and organize effectively.

Even FON’s website, with its confusing navigation and fragmented systems for exam registration, mirrors the disorder within.

Beyond logistics, FON feels like it’s training us not to be leaders or entrepreneurs, but obedient middle managers in someone else’s system, to give up before we even start. Our classes, books, and case studies rarely ask us to imagine building our own Serbian company, only how to “help a German company make more money.” Because how could a company exist and survive in Serbia when corruption is all it currently knows.

We’re taught management theory every day, yet surrounded by an institution that can’t manage itself.

Stupid innovation

We’re taught to glorify innovation. Every new invention is pitched as a step forward, a clever disruption, a mark of progress. But here’s the uncomfortable reality: not all innovation is good. Some of it is pointless, harmful, or simply stupid. Just because something can be invented doesn’t mean it should exist.

We don’t talk enough about bad innovation. The products that solve non-existent problems, the technologies that make products even worse.

 

A $400 Wi-Fi juicer that squeezed juice packs you could already squeeze with your hands. A monument to Silicon Valley’s obsession with reinventing the obvious.

Squeezed out: widely mocked startup Juicero is shutting down | Silicon Valley | The Guardian

Sold as the future of wearable tech. Delivered as a creepy surveillance device nobody wanted to wear in public. A failure not just of design, but of common sense.

Google Glass Enterprise Edition 2 Developer Kit (Glass Pod and Titanium Band) : Amazon.in: Electronics

  • Plastic coffee pods

Convenient but extremely unnecessary. A brilliant way to turn convenience into global pollution.

Which is best - aluminum, plastic or compostable coffee capsules?

  • Hoverboards

Cheap self-balancing scooters that exploded (literally) because manufacturers raced ahead of safety.

Hoverboard 6.5 inch White | Voltes - Electric Mobility

  • Endless social media “features”

Are stories, reels, shorts, fleets, threads and endless copies of each other necessary? Innovation disguised as repetition, designed only to steal more of our attention.

Instagram unveiled a new feature. Here's how you can use it (and why you'll want to) | ZDNET

  • 3D TVs

A stupid, useless gimmick that died almost as fast as it arrived.

Reviving Home Entertainment- Trends in the 3D TV Market

  • Disposable e-cigarettes

Marketed as a healthy alternative to smoking. In reality, they hooked a new generation on nicotine while creating mountains of toxic waste.

ECO Menthol E-Cig | Disposable E-Cigarette | ePuffer Vape

Innovation without purpose is just noise. Sometimes it’s laughable, a Wi-Fi toaster, sometimes it’s dangerous, vaping devices for teenagers, and sometimes it’s destructive, convenience products that poison ecosystems.

The real problem is that we confuse novelty with progress. We treat any new feature, any shiny object, any “world-changing” startup pitch as inherently valuable. Progress isn’t about making things new. It’s about making things better. And those two are not the same.

When money blocks progress

Business Idea. Businesswoman in a Business Suit Holds a Light Bulb in Her  Hands. a Gold Dollar Coin Light Bulb Emits Light in the Stock Vector -  Illustration of high, energy: 203548012History is filled with brilliant discoveries and revolutionary technologies that never had the chance to reach their full potential. Sometimes, it’s not because the idea didn’t work, but because it threatened powerful financial interests.

1. Nikola Tesla and the “Free Energy” Threat

Nikola Tesla’s work with alternating current (AC) revolutionized electricity distribution, defeating Thomas Edison’s less efficient direct current (DC). But Tesla’s more ambitious dream, wireless global power through the Wardenclyffe Tower, was abruptly halted when financier J.P. Morgan withdrew support. Morgan feared that if electricity could be transmitted wirelessly, it couldn’t be metered and sold. The project collapsed, and the tower was eventually dismantled for scrap, leaving one of history’s most daring visions unrealized.

2. Philo Farnsworth vs. Corporate Giants

Philo Farnsworth invented the first fully electronic television system in the 1920s, envisioning it as a tool for education and enlightenment. But his work ran headfirst into the might of RCA, whose president David Sarnoff launched lengthy legal battles over patents. The court fights drained Farnsworth’s resources, and by the time he prevailed, the commercial television industry had moved on, without him.

3. The Electric Car’s First Death

In the late 1990s, General Motors produced the EV1, a sleek, fully electric vehicle decades ahead of its time. Drivers loved it, but the car threatened oil industry profits and the traditional automotive business model. GM abruptly ended the program, repossessing and destroying most EV1s, citing “lack of demand.” Many believe the real reason was pressure from oil companies and a reluctance to invest in infrastructure that would reduce gasoline sales.

4. Renewable Energy Before Its Time

In the 1970s, inventor Frank Shuman’s earlier solar thermal power concepts from 1913 were rediscovered. Shuman had built a functioning solar power plant in Egypt long before the oil boom. His vision could have reduced reliance on fossil fuels, but with cheap oil flooding the market, investors saw no profit in solar energy. His work was shelved for decades, only reemerging when climate change forced a rethink.

5. Stanley Meyer’s Water-Fueled Car

Stanley Meyer claimed in the 1990s to have developed a car engine powered by water through a process of splitting hydrogen and oxygen using minimal energy. His technology remains disputed, but his invention drew enormous attention, but also resistance. Meyer faced lawsuits, was labeled a fraud, and died suddenly after a meeting with investors, fueling speculation that his ideas were intentionally buried to protect the oil industry’s dominance.

The Double-Edged Sword of Funding

While these stories show how money can suffocate innovation, it’s also true that funding is often the lifeblood of progress. The same financial resources that can block change can, in the right hands, accelerate it. Visionary backers have turned obscure ideas into global revolutions, consider how the Wright brothers’ modest bicycle business funded their experiments in flight, or how early venture capital propelled companies like Apple and SpaceX from garages to the global stage. The difference lies in the motivation of the person holding the purse strings. If their goal is short-term profit, disruptive innovation becomes a threat; if they value long-term progress, money becomes a powerful catalyst for change. In this way, financial influence is neither inherently good nor bad, it’s a tool, and the outcome depends entirely on the wielder.

These stories of failure share a common thread: innovation that threatened established financial power met swift resistance. Ideas with the potential to disrupt profitable industries are often silenced, delayed, or discredited. Science moves forward not just through discovery, but through the courage to resist the forces that would rather see the status quo remain intact.

Is AI killing or saving innovation?

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation | AppsGeyser BlogArtificial Intelligence is often seen as the driving force behind a new industrial revolution. It can be very helpful in various fields, from medicine to marketing, but is it moral to use AI for everything, especially innovation?

Is AI Fueling Creativity or Replacing It?

At first glance, AI seems like the ideal partner for innovation. It can analyze data at incredible speeds, identify patterns that escape our notice, and take over mundane tasks, allowing humans to concentrate on supposedly more important creative endeavors.

But here’s the harsh reality: AI doesn’t create. It enhances.

AI reorganizes what we already know. It takes existing information and mixes it into new, yet unoriginal results. For instance, GPT models aren’t envisioning the future, they’re forecasting the next likely word based on historical data. That’s helpful, but not true originality.

Genuine innovation often arises from conflict, gut feelings, wild ideas, or even mistakes, elements that AI tends to eliminate. If we’re not careful, AI could make our results quicker but less impactful.

 

The good in AI

It would be a mistake to brush off AI as just a copycat. When utilized effectively, it acts as a catalyst for innovation.

Take drug discovery, for example; AI can model billions of molecular interactions in just a few days. In climate modeling, it generates scenarios that no human team could ever calculate. In language translation, it removes barriers and makes knowledge accessible to everyone.

But maybe the most significant aspect is that AI fosters inclusivity in innovation. Tools that used to need technical knowledge are now available through user-friendly AI platforms. A high school student can now produce a short film with professional quality. In these situations, AI doesn’t just accelerate processes. It opens up opportunities—and that’s genuine innovation.

 

The bad in AI

Now, here’s a more concerning angle: As AI systems improve at providing answers, we’re getting worse at asking the right questions.

There’s a quiet decline in human judgment taking place. Professionals in various fields are increasingly leaning on AI’s recommendations and placing their trust in them. This isn’t merely a technical problem, it’s a cultural shift. We’re gradually moving being problem-solvers to just prompt-writers.

 

In the future

The discussion shouldn’t be “AI vs. humans,” but rather “AI alongside humans.” The true frontier is in co-creation, using AI to uncover paths we couldn’t see on our own, rather than having it do the walking for us.

 

AI shouldn’t be the one innovating. It should be a booster. It can enhance our tools, broaden our horizons, and speed up processes. The twist is that as AI gets stronger, the value of human creativity increases. Innovation isn’t solely about what we can create. It’s about the choices we make in what we create and the reasons behind those choices.

AI isn’t killing or saving innovation. It’s reshaping it. And it’s up to the user to reshape it in their own way.

Tennis clubs must go digital

Tennis in the Digital Age: How Technology is Changing the Game - Michael Koffler

The lack of digitalization in tennis clubs is not just a matter of convenience, it’s a critical roadblock to growth, relevance, and community engagement.

Old systems in a new world

Even with the global shift towards digital transformation, many tennis clubs still operate in a surprisingly analog manner. Court reservations are handled by phone calls or paper sheets, payments are collected in cash, and communication happens mostly through word of mouth. Few clubs track player data, run engaging online platforms, or provide visibility for their programs.

This absence of digital tools is not just an inconvenience for players, it’s a major missed opportunity for growth. In a time when consumers expect quick access, personalized experiences, and smooth digital interactions, clubs that resist modernization risk losing younger players and falling behind innovative organizations.

What tennis clubs should digitalize

To stay relevant and competitive, tennis clubs need to adopt digital solutions that enhance operations, and improve the member experience. Here’s what that looks like:

1. Online Court Booking Systems

  • Why: Players want to book courts anytime, without calling the front desk.

  • Benefits: Reduces scheduling conflicts, improves court utilization, and saves staff time.

  • Example: Clubs using ClubSpark in the UK allow members to book courts in seconds via mobile apps.

2. Digital Payments & Membership Management

  • Why: Cash payments are outdated, members expect online transactions.

  • Benefits: Secure, faster payments, automated invoicing, and better financial tracking.

  • Example: The USTA’s digital platform allows members to manage subscriptions and renewals seamlessly.

3. Player Data Tracking & Analytics

  • Why: Data-driven training keeps players engaged and motivated.

  • Benefits: Coaches can tailor sessions, monitor progress, and organize fairer competition formats.

  • Example: Elite clubs use PlaySight Smart Courts to track performance stats and provide instant video replay.

4. Communication Platforms & Match Notifications

  • Why: Players want instant updates on schedules, tournaments, and social events.

  • Benefits: Stronger community engagement, fewer no-shows, and increased participation.

  • Example: Many European clubs use WhatsApp integration with booking platforms to notify players of last-minute availability.

5. Social Media & Online Presence

  • Why: New players, sponsors, and local communities find clubs online first.

  • Benefits: Expands visibility, attracts younger audiences, and showcases club culture.

  • Example: The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Wimbledon) runs digital-first campaigns that boost global visibility and inspire local clubs to do the same on a smaller scale.

6. Automated Tournament & League Management

  • Why: Manual brackets and paper scoreboards are inefficient.

  • Benefits: Faster organization, live score tracking, and easier ranking updates.

  • Example: Many U.S. clubs use TennisLink to run USTA leagues fully online, from registration to results.

7. Community-Building Apps

  • Why: Players don’t just want matches, they want connection.

  • Benefits: Encourages networking, easier partner-matching, and higher retention.

  • Example: Platforms like TennisPAL or Slinger App let members find hitting partners and organize games instantly.

The urgency of digital adoption

Digitalization is no longer optional, it’s the foundation of a modern tennis club. Automating repetitive tasks allows staff to focus on coaching and building community. Data insights improve training. Online platforms make clubs more attractive to both new members and sponsors.

The longer clubs delay, the larger the gap grows between what’s possible and what’s real. And the more opportunities they risk losing.

Symbiosis of democracy and innovation

Although democracy and innovation aren’t a perfect symbiotic pair, their relationship is deeply intertwined and they greatly depend on each other.

 

What are democracy and innovation?

Democracy is a system of government in which power is held by the people, who exercise it directly or through elected representatives.

Innovation is the process of creating and applying new ideas, methods, or technologies to improve or transform products, services, or systems.

 

Democracy and innovation together

Democracy and innovation are always tied together because democratic systems create the freedom, openness, and diversity of ideas that help drive innovation, while innovation can strengthen democracy by solving problems, improving lives, and encouraging all participation. The link between democracy and innovation is very complicated, changing, and often supportive of each other. Democracy creates a space of freedom, diversity, and responsibility. Those are the elements that encourage creativity and the open sharing of ideas, both vital for innovation.

 

Innovation in democratic countries

In democratic nations, people are more inclined to challenge current systems, suggest new ideas, and explore unconventional routes without the fear of government oppression. Institutions like independent courts, a free press, and academic freedom help ensure that fresh ideas can thrive and be evaluated. Public involvement can enhance problem-solving through shared knowledge and inclusive decision-making. A good example of a democratic country that is full of innovation is the USA. With the freedom that its citizens have, anyone and everyone can start a business and succeed, it doesn’t matter who you are, or where you are in the country, it you want to succeed you can. That equal opportunity for everyone creates a ton of business down the line. More business, more people who want to succeed in the same market, more competition, more people want to beat their competition, more people think of ways to stand out, more people innovate.

 

Innovation in non-democratic countries

Innovation can also happen in non-democratic settings, though it tends to be more centralized or restricted. For an example, China has achieved swift technological progress in fields like artificial intelligence and e-commerce, even with limited political freedoms. However, critics point out that issues like a lack of transparency, censorship, and the suppression of dissent could delay or even stop sustainable innovation and ethical oversight.

Emerging democracies or nations with democratic shortcomings often find it hard to innovate effectively due to corruption, weak institutions, or insufficient investment in education and infrastructure. India, the largest democracy in the world, showcases both the advantages and challenges of democratic innovation: while its IT and startup industries are thriving, systemic governance issues and inequality still restrict broader innovation.

 

Although democracy is not essential for innovation, it frequently creates the conditions needed for sustainable, inclusive, and ethical technological advancement. The relationship between open governance and creative growth indicates that democracies, when operating effectively, possess a distinct advantage in promoting innovation that benefits the many rather than just a select few.

Art or ad

In today’s world, the line between artistic expression and commercial interest is blurring faster than ever, raising important questions about what art truly means in a consumer-driven culture.

 

Authentic expression of art 

Art has historically been regarded as one of the most genuine forms of human expression, serving as a medium for emotion, observation, and creativity. However, in the contemporary world, the distinction between art and commerce is becoming increasingly indistinct. The commercialization of art has transitioned from being a mere consequence of cultural appeal to a fundamental aspect of its production, consumption, and valuation.

 

The good in commercialization

On one side, this commercialization has provided numerous artists with the chance to sustain themselves financially through their creations. Social media, digital platforms, and international markets have unlocked opportunities that were previously dominated by galleries and institutions. Artists now have the ability to sell directly to their audience, partner with brands, or establish their own enterprises. Consequently, art has become more accessible, more visible, and arguably, more democratic.

 

The bad in commercialization

But on the other side, this expanding market influence often reduce the original value of art. The demand to create profitable work can overshadow genuine expression. Instead of fostering innovation, we witness a trend towards repetition, and copying other artwork that you know is definitely profitable . Originality is frequently sacrificed in favor of following trends. The focus shifts from authentic expression to engagement metrics, product placements, and revenue generation.

This transformation has also altered our understanding of artistic value. Previously, art was evaluated based on emotional resonance, technical proficiency, or social critique, and now it is increasingly assessed through likes, and popularity.

 

Now it’s not exactly that commercialization ruins art, numerous beautiful works throughout history were commissioned, by churches, monarchs, or patrons, with the entire point of the artwork to be sold. The distinction in the present day lies in the magnitude and rapidity of the marketplace, along with the prevalence of a consumer mentality that prioritizes immediate satisfaction over deep reflection.

Biennale Architecture

The Venice Architecture Biennale has historically served as a platform for the display of architectural innovation from across the globe. However, in recent years, particularly in its latest, it appears to have lost its focus on the true essence of architecture. What should have been a celebration of the discipline’s problem-solving creativity has increasingly devolved into a confusing showcase of poorly conceived artistic expressions masquerading as significant commentary.

Architecture is distinct from art. While it may draw inspiration from artistic fields, and can indeed be aesthetically pleasing or emotionally resonant, its core lies not in metaphor but in functionality. Architecture is fundamentally about addressing tangible issues within physical spaces, for actual individuals. Yet, the presented exhibitions at Biennale aren’t buildings, systems, or solutions, but ambiguous installations, and conceptual exhibits that seem more suited to an art biennale than the architecture one.

Rather than plans, elevations, and sections, we are presented with fabric drapes, films, and sculptural abstractions. Instead of concepts rooted in engineering, social infrastructure, or climate resilience, we encounter metaphor-laden discourses on identity, decolonization, or environmental issues. The issue is not with the exploration of these themes, it’s with the medium they are presented through. Architects who attempt to adopt the role of conceptual artists provide gestures in place of strategies, moods instead of mechanisms. In doing so, they aren’t doing the job of an architect.

This is not to suggest that architecture must always be literal or inflexible, but when architecture strives too earnestly to emulate art, it forsakes its primary purpose. The discipline does not require more vague metaphors; it demands a vision grounded in reality. Architecture should be straightforward. It ought to confront human needs and spatial challenges directly. A well-designed building speaks.

At the core of this issue lies a rising inclination to merge architecture, and design in a broader sense, with art. However, architecture is not art. Neither is design. The persistent assertion that they are is undermining the strength and intent of both.

Art is inherently subjective. It represents a personal expression of an artist, their thoughts, emotions, and identity. Its purpose is to provoke, to question, and to evoke feelings. It is not limited by functionality. A painting does not have to shield someone from rain. A sculpture does not need to ensure access to clean drinking water. Art exists for its own sake. It poses questions but rarely provides answers.

In contrast, architecture and design are objective fields with real impacts. They focus not on the creator but on the user. They are not mediums for self-expression but instruments for communal use. A building must endure. A chair must support weight.  These characteristics are not optional, they are fundamental. If a building does not fulfill the requirements of its users, it is not a misunderstood masterpiece, it’s a failure.

Effective design and architecture are grounded in functionality. They aim to resolve issues, not to convey emotions. They cater to a diverse range of individuals, not merely a singular perspective. Certainly, beauty and creativity play a role in the process, but they are never the primary focus. A well-constructed bridge or a thoughtfully designed school may be aesthetically pleasing, even inspiring, but their value is determined by their functionality, not by their emotional impact.

The current trajectory of Biennale is particularly disheartening for this reason. Instead of showcasing buildings, infrastructure, or systems that address the pressing issues of our time, such as housing, climate change, and urban density, we are presented with abstract installations that aim for poetic expression but ultimately come across as empty. The work fails to resonate because architecture is not a medium for individual narratives. It is a collective endeavor. It must respond to the community, not to individual egos.

When architects attempt to play the role of artists, they frequently ignore the discipline and accountability that architecture needs. In doing so, they not only bewilder the audience but also undermine the integrity of the field.