In Praise Leading as Craft

I’ve long loved stories that help explain craft: From the old Inside the Actors Studio television program where actors went deep into their work with host James Lipton to documentaries such as Chuck Leavell: The Tree Man and The Wrecking Crew that go behind the scenes in the music business to Kitchen Confidential and other tales of culinary culture, I want to understand the why and how behind the what.

Perhaps that is because I view my core activities of writing, speaking, and teaching about leading are all crafts. They aren’t art or rote performances. There is creativity, and it is bounded by word count limits, time allotments, and learning objectives. That’s good. It fuels innovative problem solving. Craft is the lens through which I critique everything I produce. Where did I get better? Where do I have more work to do? What felt great?

Each time I dive into someone’s craft, I come away with a deeper appreciation of just what it takes to achieve excellence. I also discover people who can come across as glib celebrities yet who are actually thoughtful and extraordinarily well-versed in the history and practice of what they do. They embrace nuance and sweat details that no one else notices; that no one else even realizes exists.

Craftspeople aren’t simply good at what they do. They have an almost spiritual connection to the materials, processes, rituals, and artifacts of their pursuit. The work is physical, mental, and transcendent.

A craft isn’t mastered in three easy steps or through the latest hack. Mastery comes through persistent curiosity, embracing learning-while-doing (and the missteps that entails), and up early in the morning devotion. It takes time, patience, and finding joy in the doing as much as the output.

I think that “craft” is a good descriptor of leading itself. Organizations often develop and measure those in leadership positions through a defined set of competencies, yet proficient leaders, like the best craftspeople, can never be defined by simple competence. That’s one of the reasons I loathe most competence models – they are tick-the-box bullshit.

For example, one of the musicians in the Chuck Leavell documentary said that when Chuck walked into the studio, you just knew everything was going to be okay. A spouse of one of the Rolling Stones commented that Leavell gave the band the structure to let Mick and the rest go wild. That’s not a matter of keyboard competence. It is something much deeper. It is assured presence. It’s putting oneself at the service of the common mission and the greater good.

So much time is devoted to learning the superficial skills of leading while the true power of a leader emerges from self-knowledge and deep investment in others as human beings and as workers or teammates. The most effective leaders I’ve met were more often quietly confident than brash and bold. Their craft is developing others, not drawing attention to themselves.

Teaching leading as a craft calls for fewer lectures and cookie-cutter frameworks. Certainly, fewer PowerPoint slides. Instead, more apprenticeship and guided growth. It requires a rhythm between practice and theory -- and deviating from the traditional academic approach of concept first and application second. It would be closer to the “See one. Do one. Teach one” model of medical school. Watch. Reflect with a mentor. Try. Reflect and analyze with a coach. Take a targeted class. Try again. Share experiences through peer learning. Try yet again. The learning is continuous and multifaceted.

This approach wouldn’t be as neat and tidy as the executive educations programs in which I teach, though I’ll bet it would be more effective and enjoyable. The ability to lead can’t be force fed into someone. It has to be nurtured and cultivated.

It’s a tall order. However, I think that our organizations and communities would benefit from more craftspeople as leaders and fewer 90-day wonders. What do you think?

As always, links are in the Comments. Your comments and shares are encouraged.