Leadership Academic or Practitioner? My problem with categories

Ever since my fascination with leadership begun I knew that I wanted to both study and experience it. My mother was my first boss. When I started working in our family business in Austria at the age of 18, I watched her in her roles as entrepreneur, manager, photographer, competitor, trainer of apprentices, coach, book keeper and single mom of two kids. I studied her interactions with apprentices, employees, customers, suppliers, rivals, and bank managers. I worked with her 7 days a week, 51 weeks a year for 6 years and never ceased to be captivated figuring out what leadership means. Right now, I am finishing up my PhD in Economics with a focus on leadership and organizational development. I also look back at several interesting assignments in my role as leadership trainer, coach and consultant to small, medium and large organizations in Europe and the USA. The only way I can make sense of theory is through experience; my rule of thumb is that what I study must add value to real people in real organizations. To me, leadership happens in action and is understood in theory - a beautiful combination. It’s simply who I am - but not always without regrets.  

People like categories, so I am the “scientist” or the “practitioner”. Why not both?

In my dissertation I deal with the way people categorize others and how this plays out in their behaviors. I learn that it is normal and natural to process new information by trying to find known categories to put it in. So, I am not really surprised that in one half of my world – the practitioner’s world of other trainers, OD consultants and HR professionals - I am considered the “academic”, the “scientist” the “rationalist”. In the other half of my world – the PhD candidate’s world of professors, students and reviewers – I am the “practitioner”, the “consultant” and the “professional”. People with rigid stereotypes consider me too academic, others too practical; it helps them make sense of me. While I am sure that I might be a little or too much academic or practical at times: being stuck in a category simply is uncomfortable to me. But what can I do?

Let’s consult the literature for some guidance. Research tells us that prototypes become more comprehensive and inclusive with a person’s experience with a certain type. For example, inexperienced leaders can have stricter ideas about the traits of an ‘ideal employee’ than more experienced leaders who have come across a larger variety of great employees. Experiencing someone means to talk to them, work with them, understand their approach and way of thinking. It also means to see commonalities with them and maybe change our minds about old prototypes.

The solution: my adaptation to different contexts

The fact that rigid stereotypes can be softened by experiencing a larger variety of certain types is no consolation but at least an explanation. I learned that I cannot rely on others to change their cognitive processes or even prevent them from having prototypical expectations towards leadership academics or practitioners. It is me who has to learn how to adapt to the different environments of academics and practitioners by communicating what’s relevant to them instead of insisting what is important to me. (And hope it will change their stereotype towards me a little.)

A very smart management professor and consultant once told me that in the field of management consulting, theory shows that “we have thought about it” and I couldn’t agree more. My passion is learning about leadership and seeing it in action – it always has been and always will be. Now that I have found a way to approach the two worlds of ‘eithers’ and ‘ors’, I feel a little bit more comfortable.