Authoring Like an Expert

Who am I to "write the book" on my topic?

If you're a writer, have ever had self doubt that your opinion matters, or that you're expertise is real (or real enough to author a book), this post is for you. Imposter syndrome is a real thing, and that self-doubt that creeps in is actually just validation that you're, at least a little, a humble person with recognition that sometimes you're a fallible human being. The reality is that there are zero credentials required to put your ideas out into the world, and many lesser minds do so without thinking twice, so surely you, with something of an informed philosophy, have the right to do at least the same.

I believe transparency is key to not only shirk away from publishing due to lack of some far out credential, but actually putting your thoughts into context for the reader. The use of transparency actually lends you more credit, because it instills trust that you are not trying to mislead the reader into thinking this publication is something that it's not.

I'm writing a book on good management, which includes but is not limited to, good leadership. Most management and leadership books out there are written by two types of authors. The first is the management consultant who has cast a wide net to collect experiences and practices from perhaps some of the best and worst managers and leaders out there. This type of book can leverage centuries of combined experience and distill all those lessons into best practices. But I believe this method also may not dive deeply enough into the nuance of day-to-day management over the course of years. It can't, by the nature of the research. It also may miss the big picture. In other words, there may be commonalities that can be traced between successful and different commonalities from unsuccessful managers, but it may miss the breadth of what it takes to be a successful, or most bestest, manager.

The second type of author I see a lot in the management and leadership book section is the former military or CEO type. I thought about making these two categories actually, but I think the results are largely the same. The military authors relate their experiences in combat missions or running a complex unit of hundreds of service men and women through chains of command. These are some great stories with great lessons. My criticism of them is simply that the severity of combat missions, life or death situations, and the enormity of a huge chain of command, is difficult to relate to as a middle manager with lots of policies and procedures to act as guiderails within which I can maneuver. Are these hairoing experiences really relatable or relevant to the middle manager in cushy corporate America?

Similarly, successful CEOs can share what it's like to command huge organizations and lead them into new business opportunities or through industry-wide technological upheavals and the like. But the same criticism applies. The scale most managers operate at is not deciding the direction of the company, but rather executing the strategy flowed down from above and empowering individuals and lower level supervisors to support those corporate directives, often only within a given function. So the scale a CEO talks at, although they do sometimes shed light on their early career and rise through the ladder, is often unimaginable or unattainable for most managers.

So that's where I feel I not only have a niche I can carve out, but a gap that is bigger and more underserved. By being transparent about who I am and at which lower level in the organization my experience comes from, I feel I'm uniquely positioned to share what has made me successful, and the lessons I learned both the hard way and the easy way.

What makes your perspective unique? How can you flip your mindset from identifying your differences as a flaw and seeing them as strengths?