A thoughtful question

[SpaceNorman]

 

Good stuff, thanks SpaceNorman!

 

 

Thanks! I see all this as a discussion about what goes into assembling and maintaining effective teams. As you've probably guessed - it's a topic that I have some passion around. As a manager in a large IT organization, a youth hockey coach (10 years worth of youth teams), an avid adult hockey player (dozens of teams in the past - currently playing on 4 different teams) and member of dozens of bands (many past ... 3 at present) - I've had a number of experiences (some gleaned from the seat of a teammate - some from the seat of the team leader) that have shaped my views of the subject. Although you didn't ask - I'm in the writin' mood (slow day here in the office!) - and am going to toss out a few things that I've found to helpful when dealing with teammates.

 

 

 

Rational debate over matters involving personal taste or art is a black hole to be avoided

 

 

Musicians are always happy to endlessly debate issues of personal taste or art (i.e., what songs belong on a good playlist, what's the right look to have on stage, etc.) There are dozens of threads on this very forum where members have argued post after post that this famous I-IV-V tune is musically superior to that famous I-IV-V tune. These same arguments take place nightly in basement rehearsal halls all around the world - wasting time and undermining teamwork in the process. By the same token, every one of us has seen a tune that we just knew would bomb - stand an audience on it's ear. Don't waste time arguing about tunes - learn 'em, try 'em out in public - keep the ones that work.

 

 

 

Always Encourage Action!

 

 

Too many rehearsal hall converstations start off with "Ya know, what we really need to do is...." and end up with nothing ever being done. In many if not most cases, dissatisfaction with how things are being done now is the catalyst for those conversations. When those conversations come up - seize the opportunity to encourage band mates to step up and ACT on those suggestions. If you're the guy who sees something you feel needs to be changed - don't talk about it - walk in to rehearsal with something to show your bandmates.

 

 

 

Don't let Talkers impede Do-ers!

 

 

As a corollary to the "Always Encourage Action!" - never let a band mate's only input be words about what he doesn't like about idea's another band mate brings forth. Immediately put him on the hook to deliver something. For example - Band Mate "A" feels that the set list is getting a little stale and comes in with a new set list for next Saturday's gig. Band Mate "B" looks it over and starts critiquing it. That's a perfect opportunity to support "A's" effort by with a "I'm all for giving A's list a try...." in one breath - and pushing band mate "B" to step up by saying "I'd be all for giving your suggestions a try at the gig after that. How about writing it up?"

 

 

 

Know what is important to you - and leave space for others

 

 

Just because you can come up with an opinion on every facet of band life - know which ones are truly important to you. Be sure that you leave space for your bandmates' input. I'll use myself and the issue of tune selection as an example. I've come to realize that I don't really care what songs my band learns as long as we get a consistent audience reaction from whatever is on our active list. Instead of involving myself in picking what we learn - I focus my attention on the tunes we need to drop and replace.

 

 

 

When bandmates have personal integrity - a difference of opinion regarding a course of action is not an argument - it's a negotiation.

 

 

If you and your bandmates are folks who are willing to say what you'll do and then do what you say - differences of opinion on what the band's course of action should be (on any topic) isn't an argument - it's a negotiation. Learn to identify what's important to your bandmates - and negotiate solutions that come the closest to meeting everybody's needs. Be flexible!

 

[gtrjones]

I think everything starts and ends with common goals.

If everyone is actually working toward a common goal, the drama should be minor and/or easy to deal with. Will this action help/hurt in trying to reach the goal?

I've been working with a few guys for a couple years now, and we've had virtually NO drama. The little drama we did have was from a bass player that didn't share our goals, so it was easy for all of us (including him) to see what the solution was - he's gone.

The problem is with passive-aggressive people who won't tell you what they REALLY think.


As far as handling drama, I prefer to have a face-to-face discussion first, so the subject doesn't feel attacked, or ganged-up on. If that fails to get results, then I work to get a consensus from the rest of the band, and have a 'confrontation' - hopefully a friendly one. But the underlying theme of all of this, is whether or not the behavior is helping or hurting the effort of reaching the goal. When the goals are different, there will always be a disconnect.

[rhat]

I think everything starts and ends with common goals. If everyone is actually working toward a common goal, the drama should be minor and/or easy to deal with. Will this action help/hurt in trying to reach the goal? I've been working with a few guys for a couple years now, and we've had virtually NO drama. The little drama we did have was from a bass player that didn't share our goals, so it was easy for all of us (including him) to see what the solution was - he's gone. The problem is with passive-aggressive people who won't tell you what they REALLY think. As far as handling drama, I prefer to have a face-to-face discussion first, so the subject doesn't feel attacked, or ganged-up on. If that fails to get results, then I work to get a consensus from the rest of the band, and have a 'confrontation' - hopefully a friendly one. But the underlying theme of all of this, is whether or not the behavior is helping or hurting the effort of reaching the goal. When the goals are different, there will always be a disconnect.

 

 

 

 

There are some situations where its just best to not really say what you are thinking. It happens alot with start up projects... you ride the horse till its time to trade up to another gig. I dont know if i would quite call it passive agressive ,,, maybe more ,, if you cant say somthing nice ,, just dont say anything at all.

[Kramerguy]

 

The problem is with passive-aggressive people who won't tell you what they REALLY think.

 

 

This was a MAJOR factor in my last band. Drummer telling me and the band he wants to do all modern and work towards originals (band goal discussions), yet tells the bass player that he wants to do classic rock covers...

 

Really pissed me off royally when I found out. Not so much that he was on a different page, but that he not only failed to mention that to the band as a whole, but mislead 1/2 the band into thinking one thing and the other half into thinking another. It's no wonder why the band ended up splitting down the middle. It would have saved everyone a lot wasted time if he just voiced his position from the get-go. Turned out that his (and to an extent the bass player's as well) silence/secrecy in the matter only caused things to blow up in the end, rather than being rationally discussed and parting ways on positive ground.

[Kramerguy]

Thanks! I see all this as a discussion about what goes into assembling and maintaining effective teams. As you've probably guessed - it's a topic that I have some passion around. As a manager in a large IT organization, a youth hockey coach (10 years worth of youth teams), an avid adult hockey player (dozens of teams in the past - currently playing on 4 different teams) and member of dozens of bands (many past ... 3 at present) - I've had a number of experiences (some gleaned from the seat of a teammate - some from the seat of the team leader) that have shaped my views of the subject. Although you didn't ask - I'm in the writin' mood (slow day here in the office!) - and am going to toss out a few things that I've found to helpful when dealing with teammates.

Good stuff. Maybe we should get this stuff sticky posted!

[BATCAT]

Good stuff. Maybe we should get this stuff sticky posted!

Ask and you shall receive.

I agree; this is a quality thread... I'll leave it stickied for a little while.

[Kramerguy]

cool

[Lee Flier]

Diatribe,

 

FWIW I don't think there's anything you really could have done to save your previous band. They were just the wrong people for you to be working with because it's obvious you had different goals from the get go. So there's not a whole lot of point going through a bunch of "what-if's" in your mind, tempting as that may be, because it would've eventually had the same outcome.

 

Now as far as what you CAN learn from the experience: it can be tempting to start looking for bandmates, find somebody who seems to have good musical ability, and stop looking right there, without doing a "character check." This is a little like marrying somebody because they're hot and the sex is great, then later finding out they cheat on you at every opportunity, are never around when you need them, and don't shower regularly. And then try to blame YOU for it somehow. Well, the only thing you did wrong was pick the wrong person and give them too much of the benefit of the doubt just because they were great in the sack.

 

Nobody is worth keeping around if they're passive aggressive and/or flakes. They just aren't. There's room for compromise in some areas, like maybe a bandmate has a family and will sometimes have to bail on a rehearsal for family stuff, or you want to gig once a week and they want to do twice a month... it's pretty common for one or two bandmates to be more motivated than the others. Those kinds of things can be worked through. But if somebody just flat doesn't show up when they say they will, doesn't say what they mean, doesn't show up to rehearsal prepared, etc... well even if they are musically good, it's not going to work.

 

So you have to have a pretty good idea what your goals are for a band and make sure everybody you work with is on the same page. Once you are working with the right people, a lot of the other stuff gets easier and you'll wonder how you could've ever been considered the "bad guy". The right people will appreciate your drive and motivation, the wrong people will resent you for it.

 

As far as a band being a democracy vs. a leader... either one can work, and don't let anybody tell you differently. My band is a democracy and has been for 7 years. It's not as common as the band with a clear leader, but they certainly exist. Again though you have to make sure you're working with the right people, and that everyone knows what their role is. The reason my band is able to be a democracy is because everybody just knows when to take charge and when to hang back, apart from the fact that we have similar goals and reasonable expectations - we're good friends and we talk regularly and make sure that our goals are doable and that everyone wants to do them.

 

But lots of people would rather be the leader of a band, or join a band that has a clear leader, so that everybody knows what to expect. Nothing wrong with that either. Either way it's just key to find the right people and don't give up till you do.

[babalugats85]

Not to nitpick but the democracy vs. leader discussion is somewhat misleading in that they are not really mutually exclusive. A true democracy means everything, everywhere gets put to a vote, every time. Tell me one band where that ever worked. I think most people consider a democracy as believing you have a say, but that there still may be a leader that makes certain decisions unilaterally to keep things moving.

Every band member should have a say, perhaps most importantly in who they think should take the reigns. But by the same token, nothing gets done if every single issue, no matter how mundane is debated and voted on.

Case in point, my band played a gig 2 weeks ago. We showed up and the bar had 4 movable risers set up as our stage. The band debated for 15 minutes about how the risers should be positioned. I let the discussion go on with the mistaken belief that it was best to let everyone speak their piece. After everything was arranged, one member started the discussion all over again and we ended up moving the risers again and they wound up EXACTLY where they were before we started.

The net result: nothing accomplished and we were then 20 minutes behind in setting up. So while everyone needs to feel like their voice is heard, debating/discussing every point leads to "analysis paralysis" and to overcome that, someone has to lead.

[SpaceNorman]

 

The net result: nothing accomplished and we were then 20 minutes behind in setting up. So while everyone needs to feel like their voice is heard, debating/discussing every point leads to "analysis paralysis" and to overcome that, someone has to lead.

 

 

A real leader will lead when leadership is needed - regardless of the group's organizational structure. Leadership in a small, all voluntary organization such as a band must emerge and be recognized by the members of the group if it is to be effective. It cannot simply be appointed - volunteers will not follow an appointed leader if that appointed leader can't garner the trust and respect of the other members.

 

In the scenario you outlined - a decision was made and a single bandmate felt empowered to trump it when they didn't like it.

This isn't a structural issue - it's a lack of leadership issue. It can't be solved by "picking" a leader.

[BlueStrat]

A real leader will lead when leadership is needed - regardless of the group's organizational structure. Leadership in a small, all voluntary organization such as a band must emerge and be recognized by the members of the group if it is to be effective. It cannot simply be appointed - volunteers will not follow an appointed leader if that appointed leader can't garner the trust and respect of the other members. In the scenario you outlined - a decision was made and a single bandmate felt empowered to trump it when they didn't like it. This isn't a structural issue - it's a lack of leadership issue. It can't be solved by "picking" a leader.

 

+1000

 

I took some leadership training ( a LOT of it, actually) and one of the sessions I took was a weekend long one on leadership style as applied to readiness level of those being led. One of the sessions involved watching the old movie "12 O'Clock High" about a B-17 bomber squadron in WW2. It isw a great movie to watch from a leadership standpoint.

 

Basically, the gist of the course was that there are 4 readiness levels (R 1-4) and 4 corresponding leadership styles (S 1-4) to accompany them. Problems arise when leaders apply the wrong style to a particular readiness level.

 

R1- willing and able = S1 get out of the way and monitor

 

R2- willing but unable = S2 Coach

 

R3- able but unwilling = S3 Encourage and/or direct gently

 

R4- unwilling and unable = Instruct and demonstrate with direct commands

 

Obviously, in bands there will be very few R-4s, so that generally doesn't need to be a consideration. But you can see where as a leader, applying S1 to R2 or R3 is going to set people up for failure, while using S2,3 or 4 on an R1 will frustrate him.

 

Anyway, this helped me a lot in dealing with various people in my bands. Of course, understanding the 4 basic personality types (sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholy and choleric) and how they need to be handled helps, too, but that's another topic for another day.

[SpaceNorman]

 

Obviously, in bands there will be very few R-4s....

 

 

Unfortunately, it seems that there's seldom any shortage of R3's either.

 

Personally, I think that being an effective leader in a small, volunteer organization like a band it perhaps the toughest challenge a leader will face.

 

Unlike most leadership positions (i.e., day gigs) where the leader has the benefit of an official position and the "stick" that offer of a steady paycheck provides - an effective leader in most bands must lead almost exclusively on the power of his proposed solutions and on the personal respect that he can earn from his bandmates.

 

The fiercely independent nature of many musicians means that in some instances even very competent leaders can find themselves challenged to lead band members who simply will not be led.

[gareth09]

If you don't want to seem like you're victimizing the guy in question you can suggest a meeting away from the rehearsal room or stage it to discuss "band progress/issues".

Invite everyone to bring up any ideas they may have to improve things, any areas of concern. Tell them all you should be free to discuss any topics or suggestions. You might find the guy in question brings up his own problems then you can discuss together what could be done to help resolve issues.

If not, and no-one else mentions his "flaky" behavior, you'll have to bring it up. You could mention the fact that he "doesn't seem to be himself/ seems to be having issues or problems". Is there anything you or others could do to help out? Does he need some time away from the band to sort himself out etc etc.

Hope this helps

[BlueStrat]

 

The fiercely independent nature of many musicians means that in some instances even very competent leaders can find themselves challenged to lead band members who simply will not be led.

 

 

Ain't that the truth.

[Lee Flier]

 

Not to nitpick but the democracy vs. leader discussion is somewhat misleading in that they are not really mutually exclusive. A true democracy means everything, everywhere gets put to a vote, every time. Tell me one band where that ever worked.

 

 

That isn't really how I think of a democracy as it applies to a band. If no one can make a suggestion without everyone else having to debate it and "vote" on it, then either somebody is making a lot of unreasonable suggestions, or there are some control freaks in the band who just can't let someone else make a decision without quibbling over it.

 

In my band we rarely ever endlessly debate anything. Someone will usually just say "Let's do this," and the others will say "OK" and we'll just do it. Or someone else will suggest something better, and it either seems clear to everyone that it's better, or it's just not worth arguing about.

 

We have a few simple rules of thumb such as:

 

- anyone can bring in a new song.

- if anyone doesn't like a song that someone else brings in, anyone has veto power.

- when it comes to song arrangement ideas, we'll try everyone's ideas, but if there's any disagreement the final say goes to the person who originally conceived the song.

 

Etc. But the main thing is we're enough on the same page musically and personally that we don't get stuck arguing over stupid stuff.

[strathound]

Why is this post sticky?

[BATCAT]

Why is this post sticky?

Because it's quality.

I'll probably unsticky it at the end of the week.

You gotta problem with that?

[strathound]

You never stickified any of my posts.

[Steadfastly]

A code of ethics/standards is a good idea right from the start. It should be written out, signed and dated by all band members and whenever a new member joins, it should be with the understanding that he/she also conduct himself by the same standards and they need to sign it before being accepted as a member.

If a person balks at signing, you don't want that person to begin with, no matter how talented they are because one of the talents they'll have sooner or later is to cause dissension in the band.

[axeman25]

Spacenorman..........you should write a book.

You often offer some of the most thought out, well written advice.

(Uh oh, I may have a man-crush)

But really, well put. Good job.

[Kramerguy]

A code of ethics/standards is a good idea right from the start. It should be written out, signed and dated by all band members and whenever a new member joins, it should be with the understanding that he/she also conduct himself by the same standards and they need to sign it before being accepted as a member. If a person balks at signing, you don't want that person to begin with, no matter how talented they are because one of the talents they'll have sooner or later is to cause dissension in the band.

 

 

Did you have a format or formula for the "code"? It's a good idea, but I'm not sure where I would start. Some ethics like drinking while playing are hard to get people on the same page. I don't drink at all, but I could see a drummer bitching about not being able to have ONE beer and making a big fuss over it. Other ethics are kind of obvious, like showing up for practice/gigs.

[Janx]

Did you have a format or formula for the "code"? It's a good idea, but I'm not sure where I would start. Some ethics like drinking while playing are hard to get people on the same page. I don't drink at all, but I could see a drummer bitching about not being able to have ONE beer and making a big fuss over it. Other ethics are kind of obvious, like showing up for practice/gigs.

 

 

a long time ago, I had a thread about band rules. Folks had a lot of rules to "outlaw" bad behaviors, but a good point was made. All the rules were common sense, and you didn't need those rules for good people, and the bad people were just going to ignore them anyway. The only benefit of writing them down was so you could say, "you keep violating the rules, you're fired"

 

 

I don't disagree with having them written down. It's a way of trying to get people thinking about behavior the same way. It's also a place to document money and credit issues. Try to keep it short.

[SpaceNorman]

I tend to agree with Janx's observation that the code is usually common sense stuff that most folks don't need to have written down - and that those that would need it written down are likely to ignore anyway. It ain't gonna be a rule book! I do however think that done right - the process of developing the list of rules can be very valuable in understanding what is important to the various members of a band - and in establishing expectations between band mates. If it's treated like a hard and fast set of "rules" it will have limited worth - but treated as a "document of understanding" it can help bring bandmates together - and serve to help refresh memories later on if/when problems arise.

 

If I were tasked with leading the discussion - I'd put together a strawman list of potential topics like the following:

 

 

What should our "policy" on drinking/drugs be? Are we a zero tolerance band? Should we have a policy at all? Is it OK as long as it doesn't affect your playing? (which we all know to be a myth, everything affects your playing....) What should the consequences be?

 

What is our target practice load? (# of practices per week?, only practice before a paying gig?)

 

How do we approach scheduling practices? Does one person have the authority to say practice is at X date and time - and everybody else is expected to be there - period? Do we have a minimum leadtime requirement? Do we confirm practice dates?

 

What's our target gig load? (Every weekend? X times a month?)

 

How do we approach scheduling gigs? Does one person have the authority to commit the band without first getting a commitment everybody in the band?

 

How are we going to communicate? Do we expect that we all check emails once a day? Do we expect confirmations from everybody before something being proposed becomes part of "the plan"?

 

How are we going to manage our songlist? Who can propose tunes? How do we get tunes onto the list? How do we decide which tunes to try?

 

What's our "policy" regarding punctuality? What are our notification expectations? Does a 7:00 pm rehearsal mean "arrive at 7:00" or "start playing at 7:00"?

 

What is our "leadership" structure? Are we "Band by Committee?" Are we a "Designated Leader" band?

 

What's our view on using substitutes? (Yes / No / Maybe?)

 

What's our policy regarding stage wardrobe?

 

What's our policy regarding splitting gig money?

 

What's our policy on minimum charges, "pay to play" and "freebies"?

 

What's our policy about expense reimbursement? How are expenses approved? When are they approved?If I were trying to work through this - I'd probably introduce it to my bandmates as something I read about on this forum that I thought sounded like a good idea and that I'd like to try to put together a set of "band policies" over the next few weeks and ask for their participation. Then as informally as possible - i.e., before rehearsal, after rehearsal - whenever I had a majority of band members present - I'd pose a question or two - then sit back and listen to what my bandmates say. I'd have prepared my thoughts on each question before I asked it - and be prepared to "prime the pump" by tossing my thoughts out as a "strawman" and see where the conversation goes. Throughout the discussion, I'd be looking to hear from each band member on each point. - and would actively ask band members who weren't jumping into the conversation for their opinion.

 

After each conversation - I'd sit down by myself and document a policy statement that reflected what I felt I heard in the conversation. Each week I'd share my recap of the discussion on the previous topic and look for agreement from my bandmates (..."Remember last week we were talking about what our policy should be regarding drinking/drugs? ...Here's what I think we were saying....". Does that sound right to you guys?") I'd go this process - repeating steps as unnecessary until I got a statement that everybody agreed represents "our" policy on the the topic.

 

Ultimately, I'd end up with a list of policy statements that reflected the cummulative conversation and embodied the collective view of the band - which I'd publish to the band. Then in the future - if / when issues involving any of the policies arose - I'd pull the document out to "refresh our memories" about the policies we agreed to.

[Guitar Centaur]

Hey thanks for that. From all the responses I do see one major flaw in how I handled things. When myself and the drummer first formed, he seemed happy to let me 'run with things', I did all the networking, internet stuff, finding members, setting up auditions, as if I was the de-facto leader, but I wasn't. It was a democratic band. I was not the leader, I was just the alpha, guaranteed to be at the center of every problem. The biggest downfall to that position is that rehearsals were at the drummer's place, and the PA belonged to the bassist. Outside of my own skills, I had no physical assets to guarantee my 'position'. The drummer, in the end, was the decision maker in the band splitting; simply because it's HIS house. Nothing I said or did even remotely mattered (although I didn't realize that until it was over). So yeah. A band NEEDS a leader, and the band members need to respect the leader's decisions. Without structure, things go haywire. Lesson learned.

 

 

 

the band I'm in now has a defacto leader. He's the other guitarist/singer. It's his band, and has been since the beginning of time.

 

My joining seems to have re-energized all the members. I went out and jammed with them a couple times, saw immense potential in the levels of talent of each member, but it was like they were burned out. The bass player and drummer don't have much computer savvy, so I willingly stepped in and took over the web presence, networking, etc. since I sit in front of a computer all day anyway.

 

I think we're still pretty "democratic" by most band standards. Luckily for us, we all pretty much think alike, and like the same things, so not too many ideas get shot down.

 

Nobody in this band goes looking for drama, and for the most part, we all speak our minds if something bothers us (which it rarely does). Everyone is encouraged to shine, and given ample opportunity for spotlight time. I've never been in a band this talented before where there was ZERO ego.

 

I'm a very lucky fellow.

[rhat]

If someone came to me with a code of conduct contract,,, i would have two things to say. Fine , how much is my yearly salary ... and if there wasnt one ,, i would just say go find yourself another keyboard player.