Artists, Craftsmen and Technocrats

No, not a democrat, a technocrat. . . This morning I started reading Strengthening the Heartbeat, Leading and Learning Together in Schools, by Thomas J. Sergiovanni. In chapter 8 he talks about different kinds of leaders. I found it interesting in light of discussion about what kind of leaders we see the Presidential candidates being and what gifts we could see them bringing to the White House. I am not completely sure which applies to McCain, Clinton and Obama, but the point of the chapter is that, as is the case with any of these tools, we need to think in terms of who we can surround ourselves with to fill in the roles where our giftings fall short. In terms of politicians, they usually choose running-mates who balance themselves out on the political spectra, however, the key, of course, is who they surround themselves with, staff-wise, to help make a more balanced and effective team.

The three "archetypes" were developed by Patricia Pitcher (1997) who argues that leadership training is important, but personality factors, dispositions and styles (archetypes) of leadership count for a lot. These are the three archetypes:

Artists are brilliant visionaries, people oriented, open minded and intuitive. They view leadership as vision which transfers into goals. Artists tend to be imaginative, emotional and entrepreneur-like. People are drawn to them for their charisma and inspiring ideas. Artists are also daring and unpredictable at times.

Craftsmen are empathetic and effective developers of people who empower others and are skilled at bringing people together to get things done. They view leadership as design which transfers vision and big ideas into understandable and useful practice. Though sometimes seen as critical, craftsmen tend to be stable, wise and and responsible. They are good at managing attention, meaning, trust, paradox, and, with practice, can manage effectiveness.

Technocrats are also brilliant, meticulous, and superb at managing things, though not so much people. They depend more on hyper-rationality, rules, steps, procedures, standardization and what has been done before. Technocrats view leadership as script, making sure everything and everyone is running by the book. They tend to be serious, meticulous and methodical.

I was surprised to hear Pitcher argue that in our school systems, we have too much vision and not enough people who can build strategies, develop the ideas and rally the human resources to get jobs done and build good teams. She also went on to say that too many technocrats in top leadership roles can do irreparable harm. They are best suited to lower management. In the broader picture of an institution, Pitcher recommends that artists and technocrats each make up about 10% of the population of leaders and the rest be craftsmen (80%). It seems like a tall order if her assessment that our nation is lacking in craftsmen is, indeed, true.

As I think about the three candidates I mentioned above, I see Obama as a visionary. He inspires people and is able to imagine a future not locked-in by the past. Based on Pitcher's archetypes, it would be imperative, however, that Obama surround himself with craftsmen to help people feel that vision being worked out. What I am not sure about is McCain and Clinton. I really can't say I see them as artists. In fact, I'm worried that they may, in fact, fall into the Technocrat category, in which case, based on Pitcher's analysis, could cause trouble as far as their ability to work with others and envision truly new possibilities. Maybe Hillary is a Craftsmen. I'm not sure.

Or maybe, they are all artists, to a certain extent. I suppose to be a politician in the first place means that you must have some visionary ability. And maybe it is more their personalities which make them more or less team players and able to see global issues outside of the box of precedent. In either case, as Pitcher points out, when we match leaders to particular positions/roles, we should be taking into consideration, not just what they say, but how they work, how they relate to people, and even the types of people they are willing to surround themselves with to make them more effective. This is something I'm going to pay more attention to in the next few months.

After living overseas for a number of years, I have come to realize that our awareness of these issues as Americans is never enough. For I am humbled to say that when we cast our votes for the President of the United States of America, the truth is, we are also casting a vote for the most powerful leader in the world. Do we bear this burden with enough courage and integrity balanced with a healthy dose of fear and trepidation?