Jump to content

If Music City gave up


Recommended Posts

any consideration that the people in charge may just be plain ole burned out? Tired of the task of survival mode..empty promises of memeber who feel entitled to march and dont pay, fundraising. I can go on and on..its a great activity BUT not an easy one by no means...just a thought smile.gif

Yah, agreed. But I'd think a sufficiently deep organization would make the normal, expected aggravations a consistently smaller percentage of the ED's time.

I suspect the PITA issues would infect virtually every part of running a corps, and I can see how trying to be the "jack of all trades" ED would lead to burn out very quickly. Instead, I'd spread that aggravation among several or many staff members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, agreed. But I'd think a sufficiently deep organization would make the normal, expected aggravations a consistently smaller percentage of the ED's time.

I suspect the PITA issues would infect virtually every part of running a corps, and I can see how trying to be the "jack of all trades" ED would lead to burn out very quickly. Instead, I'd spread that aggravation among several or many staff members.

no easy task all around this activity and tons of issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you are pulling my leg, but do you agree that 'if needed', the ED should not consider himself above grunt tasks, and by pitching in during those situations he garners much respect from the subordinates?

Yea, no question, but an effective leader also lets his troops make decisions and learn from them. To do otherwise would necessarily require the ED to be a part of, follow-up on, and define every decision. Sure death to even a young (read: poor) director, let alone an older ED who more likely would have the funds to seed the operation. Triple the problem if the ED has a day job to attend to as well that allows him to be ED in the first place.

My opinion is that the correct ED is likely one who manages from an office and has a deep enough staff to implement what he defines needs done.

I use my view of Crown or BD as good examples of what I'm describing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief Garfield, I know you are sort of pulling my leg, here, but... Let's say that the ED is healthy as an ox and the spare tire came loose while out on the road no fault of the driver. So, without pulling my leg, do you agree that 'if needed', the ED should not consider himself above grunt tasks, and by pitching in during those situations and doing some grunt stuff he garners much respect from the subordinates? Or should he, no matter what, consider himself above those tasks?

Of course I agree that the ED should be a part of the team but, if he's seen every day in every part of the corps, I'd suggest his time as ED is limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the right answer if the ED has a bad back?

So, physical strength is a requisite for a successful ED and corps?

(Only half pulling your leg)

EDIT: And what if the driver pulled the tire out of its rack when it wasn't necessary? Let him learn the lesson himself or bail him out of a mistake he might then repeat?

I suspect Stu's point is that a great director/CEO/boss/leader makes sure the job gets done when it has to get done. Period. If that means installing enough staff & volunteers to get the job done, great. If that means the CEO gets dirty sometimes to make sure the job gets done, great.

As with many things on the internet, I get posters' need to argue semantics, hence your "so if he has a bad back and/or the strength of a weakling and can't physically help blah blah blah." But I'd like to think we're all intelligent enough to see the actual point to the argument Stu was making, which is if a leader sits back and waits for others to do a job (even if those other people are struggling/failing at doing their own job), chances are that organization will struggle to survive, let alone thrive. Obviously in a perfect world a drum corps Executive Director is afforded the luxury of installing more-than-competent staffers & volunteers so everything runs amazing. But in reality, especially for newer organizations, that isn't always the case and the director has to get his hands dirty doing grunt work in order for their organization to survive.

Now if that director continues to struggle finding the right staff & volunteers, I 100% understand why he would say "enough's enough - I'm done with all of this work" and step down and/or fold the organization. But the director who sits back and does nothing while work piles up, waiting for others to get the job done, is a director who either won't last long or whose organization won't survive.

(also, FWIW, the director who continually does all of the dirty work on top of his logistical & financial responsibilities will likely get burned out quick)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Stu's point is that a great director/CEO/boss/leader makes sure the job gets done when it has to get done. Period. If that means installing enough staff & volunteers to get the job done, great. If that means the CEO gets dirty sometimes to make sure the job gets done, great.

As with many things on the internet, I get posters' need to argue semantics, hence your "so if he has a bad back and/or the strength of a weakling and can't physically help blah blah blah." But I'd like to think we're all intelligent enough to see the actual point to the argument Stu was making, which is if a leader sits back and waits for others to do a job (even if those other people are struggling/failing at doing their own job), chances are that organization will struggle to survive, let alone thrive. Obviously in a perfect world a drum corps Executive Director is afforded the luxury of installing more-than-competent staffers & volunteers so everything runs amazing. But in reality, especially for newer organizations, that isn't always the case and the director has to get his hands dirty doing grunt work in order for their organization to survive.

Now if that director continues to struggle finding the right staff & volunteers, I 100% understand why he would say "enough's enough - I'm done with all of this work" and step down and/or fold the organization. But the director who sits back and does nothing while work piles up, waiting for others to get the job done, is a director who either won't last long or whose organization won't survive.

(also, FWIW, the director who continually does all of the dirty work on top of his logistical & financial responsibilities will likely get burned out quick)

We're on the same page (and Stu pulls his own chain so I don't have to - much :tongue:/>). I'm more and more to the realization that the depth of the team is, likely, the most important aspect of a successful corps. Assembling that team is, again likely, the highest priority for the ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more and more to the realization that the depth of the team is, likely, the most important aspect of a successful corps. Assembling that team is, again likely, the highest priority for the ED.

That seems obvious, and is likely a huge reason why it's difficult to start/sustain a new drum corps. There are so many "moving parts," so to speak, within the non-member side of the organization: design staff, instructional staff, caption supervisors, logistic coordinators, financial overseers, fundraising specialists, promotion/hype-generators, vehicle drivers & mechanics, cooking staff/supervisor, uniform crew & supervisor, equipment supervisor, etc. It is a very daunting and difficult task to assemble and maintain such a large base of adults, and thats even before you talk about being competitive! The top corps of our activity are successful because they've learned how to assemble & maintain a myriad of talented and dedicated folks behind-the-scenes. That task is essential, and should be the priority of an exec. director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, no question, but an effective leader also lets his troops make decisions and learn from them. To do otherwise would necessarily require the ED to be a part of, follow-up on, and define every decision.

The situations I am referring to have nothing at all to do letting the troops make decisions and learn from their successes and failures. Did you not read my true-life experience example while I was working on the loading dock at Walmart? That was, is, the type of situation I am speaking of; not 'micro-managing' decisions.

My opinion is that the correct ED is likely one who manages from an office and has a deep enough staff to implement what he defines needs done.

Again I am not talking about corporate structure and the chain of command of defining what needs to be done; I am talking about chipping in 'when needed'. So, again using my true-life Sam Walton experience as an example; You contend that Sam should have never been in that truck in the first place, he should have been in his office, and he should have 'not' chipped in to help us when he saw we were short handed, thus I would never have had the pleasure of 'learning to lead' through is willingness to serve where needed.

I use my view of Crown or BD as good examples of what I'm describing.

A few questions for ya: 1) Do you mean Crown and BD 'now' or Crown and BD when the corps were starting out?; 2) Are you saying that, if needed, Kevin Smith, Jim Coats, and David Gibbs today 'would not' follow the example of Sam Walton and 'not' chip in to do some grunt work if the needed situation presented itself? and 3) Are you saying that Smith, Coats, and Gibbs should thus consider themselves as Directors above doing such tasks if needed and direct the corps by staying in their respective offices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use my view of Crown or BD as good examples of what I'm describing.

Following up on what Stu said, it's difficult to know how those directors managed their corps back in the day. History gets revised with time, if it's even available. However, we do know that Bill Cook personally drove the bus (or truck, I forget which) when it became necessary. If you mean today, well of course those corps have enough resources that they can afford to be off site. Unless you're bringing more to the table than most drum corps start-ups, you won't have that luxury.

I remember learning in college about a study of leadership personalities in which the researchers studied proven successful managers from various fields and various sized organizations. The takeaway was that there is no leader personality. They were all very different people. But they did all have one trait in common; a high degree of gregariousness and the appearance of caring about each person they dealt with. The manager of a bra manufacturer that had become famous for extremely few defects was the extreme in this; he actually cried regularly about any personal/home life issues his employees had, right down to the lowest employee. The employees interviewed seemed to find this highly annoying (not surprisingly). But they produced few defects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...