Craftsmanship and Management-ship
Note – this article is half-baked. I don’t even know if I really agree with what I am saying here, but it happens to be on my mind, so I’m putting it out here. I’m not even going to check it for grammar. Please take that into consideration before you blast me about it.
A couple of years ago I tried to write about the importance of Learning the Craft of your profession. I’ve always thought that it is important to maintain and build traditional skills, and to literally be a “master” in the art of whatever it is that you do.
On observation I’ve had while witnessing corporate culture first hand is that the soft skills of persuasion, presentation, communication, delegation and organization seem to be placed in higher esteem than the skills of fine craftsmanship. If you take a look at any organization’s management structure, this is what seems to play out. Those who have mastered the soft skills are typically in management, and those who are true craftsmen are found among the laborers. The laborers are often frustrated by the incompetence of “management” who doesn’t appear to have the slightest idea about the actual art of making things. Likewise, management is nearly always frustrated by the incompetence of the “laborers” when it comes to managing timelines, budgets and relationships.
This situation begs to question: Is it possible within corporate culture to become a hybrid of both? A master of the craft, and a master of communications and relationships? This is always the goal, and seems to be the desire of every person. Managers who are not craftsmen always wish that they could just do it themselves. They might think “how much easier would it be if I was able to do that myself.” As a craftsman, you are often forced to build your soft skills just to get the job done. You need to talk to clients, you need to understand the business, and you need to better your soft skills just to make you a better person.
A dilemma comes into play when you cross the line—the hard line that divides “management” from the “laborers.” Most organizations that I am familiar with have been structured to support professional managers, and professional craftsmen, but they are not designed to support professional craftsmen who are also managers. Because of this management tasks are distributed in a way that makes it nearly impossible for someone with the title of “manager” to do any real work. It also means that in any situation, a professional manager will be assigned to a project, even if a capable “craftsman” is on the project.
More questions comes to mind: Is there space to maintain a practice of craftsmanship? Can excellent software developers continue to be software developers and guide their organizations? Can excellent designers continue to practice design and even improve their skills while tasked with directing and managing groups a of designers? Can professional managers who have never perfected an art learn it and develop a skillful practice of their own while successfully retaining control of their management responsibilities?
Is this even worth questioning?