Practice and Theory are not Synonymous
A mini rant on the co-opting of leadership expertise
Having been a student, practitioner, and professor of leadership for many years now I am still somewhat flummoxed by the number of other "experts" in leadership who have yet to read a book of theory or could even name one mainstream leadership theory.
Leadership is one of those topics that everyone who has ever managed people seems to think they can speak to. While, no doubt, the managing of people, tasks, and projects requires some leading, the reality remains that managing and leading are different skills. And practicing those skills does not create a body of research, but rather of experience. The ability to speak to a topic as an expert continues to require study and thought. Failure to keep up with the published work of others can quickly outdate your own scholarship and capabilities.
Experience is a helpful metric but it's not equivalent to expertise.
I often think of my theologian dad and how frustrating it is as an expert in studying the bible to hear people pontificate on their own “expertise.” And yet, to be fair to me, I have heard more than a few preachers claim to be experts in leadership because they read [insert popular self-help book here].
Leadership is an actual field of study. It requires time and thought and effort and energy just like any other academic field. As I often remind my students, the practice of leadership is valuable. Necessary even. We can learn from those who have lived it (and in fact, we do this formally via original research!). However, books by business greats are not scholarly resources. They’re sharing experience, not theory. I often give the example that Warren Buffett, is no doubt super helpful to learn from and hear from. But he’s not a scholar. Brené Brown is a scholar. She happens to write in an accessible way that many have found approachable. But her work is original research and she is an academic. (Of course, we could have a whole different post about why her work gets shoved to self-help sections of bookstores when the work of male academics does not…)
While I’m willing to admit I’m more sensitive to this because it’s my field, I also would never suppose to be an expert in biology just because I am a human with keen observation skills. Or was once supposed to dissect a frog (can’t recall how I got out of that one in 10th grade). I would not argue that watching The Pitt season one means I should experiment with emergency medicine or speak to how best to approach someone having a heart attack. Surely, I could share about my own experience being rather ill a few years ago. Or the caregiving experience of my mom’s illness. But I am not that kind of doctor, so my experience is experiential at best. It is practice, not theory.
There is great value in the practice of the field. In fact, my stint as associate vice president of academics was a great field experiment for me in some ways! Teaching graduate students really demands that I have both the knowledge of theory and the practical experience. I am a better professor for the experience of leading in real life. But my university’s accreditor, SACSCOC, would never — and should never — think me qualified to teach MBA students without the academic work and dissertation-writing.
Even in the world of AI and social media platforms and disinterest in facts - this matters. Theory and research matter. And reading a reddit board, posting an anecdote to LinkedIn, and even opining here on Substack don’t make anyone an expert. But the work of study and writing and research does.
I am curious in a great many things. I enjoy reading and learning and practicing skills. But I am only an academic expert in the one-broad area. The distinction matters.