Your Event Team.

[arontius]

.....This is an interesting conundrum from the standpoint of Team Planning. I was talking to someone today where the thought was that if a major event needed to be done in a hurry, with as little hassle as possible, that the best course of action was to hand pick a select group of people to be the major players of that Team.

.....You have this major Project you are committed to completing. The event is a larger scale SCA Event (Crown Event), which means upwards of 1,000 people. But not the scale of an Inter-Kingdom Event (with larger numbers) or a Demonstration Event which combines the strangenesses of dealing with the Modern Public. Your time frame is tight, but not an emergency. You have your site and you have a relatively clear vision of what the overall event should be and look.

.....Naturally, the tendency is to want to surround yourself with a Team who are all competent, as in they have experience with this type of event and know what it is they need to do to be successful. All of the Team members have at least some experience in the tasking they've agreed to do. They at least know, if not have worked with, all the Team members regularly or in the past. They have some passing familiarity with the site, and that site is relatively close. Within these parameters the event should happen at least relatively smoothly, barring unexpected hits (extreme weather, etc.). If the Team has the required experience, they should be able to deal with unexpected occurrences (more people than expected show up to the event, etc.).

.....Dare I say it? Leading that type of Team would be fun and actually kind of peaceful and restful, with much satisfaction when complete. Well worth the time and energy that was input to make it happen.

.....However, the SCA (like many others) is a group based on volunteers. You really cannot dictate what people can and cannot become members. So your range of volunteers runs the spectrum of the type of people from whom you can recruit. People with no experience in event planning whatsoever. People who routinely overestimate what they can physically or mentally accomplish. I'm not even suggesting that it is necessarily any fault of their own either. People don't know what they don't know and may commit to actions that look relatively easy, but prove to be quite the challenge.

.....Then there are the complexities of Modern Life. In a Volunteer Organization, it is that Modern Job that pays the bills and puts the roof over your head. Sometimes it will determine what is the most important thing happening in your life at any given moment. Volunteers may be lost at sometimes the eleventh hour due to these issues. As the person who is ultimately running the event, you can sometimes gage the risk of these volunteers as integral members of your Team and how best to shore them up or have back-up plans in place.

.....If your Team is high risk, there will be anxiety. Time and energy will be spent in guiding and nurturing Team members, building those back-up plans, stepping in to take on duties as needed. Or finding someone to take on those duties. When you have completed this event, you may feel a sense of accomplishment still. But you will also feel a sense of frustration that you had to deal with the issues you did.

.....Here is the conundrum. When you put your hat in the ring and submit a bid for an event, should you always hand-pick your Team and only select those people whom you KNOW can complete the work? What percentage of your Team would you require to have the experience and / or knowledge to complete the actions you know are required to plan your event and execute it successfully?

.....Is that fair? There are always people coming into the branch who need to learn how to become part of an Event Planning Team and what it takes to successfully execute an event. Some people have natural talent for this and will pick up the process easily, with very little mentoring. You can fairly easily add these people to your Team and only check in on them occasionally to course correct as needed.

.....There is another group to consider that is even more difficult. Those people who do not normally work well with a Team at all, but still want to support the event or the branch. Those people who do not have any proclivity towards the things it takes to plan for events or make them happen. Those people who are not naturally creative people, who have a difficult time coming up with solutions on the run, or thinking outside the proverbial box. There are others who seem to delight in disrupting everyone around them, oftentimes without even thinking about it.

.....These difficult people are also paid members of the Society, as well as members of your branch / group. Is it right to exclude them from the event process? The one answer that comes to mind is that if the actions of these people are going to be detrimental to the group as a whole; well then, you have to protect the group. Duh. Can you help them grow into productive members of an event planning group? How much work would be required in doing this? Do you have the time and energy to devote to this? Do you have someone else you can convince to take them under their wing?

.....If these people are paid members of the group, is it right to exclude them from the process even though it is disruptive? That rather points to the system as a whole. There is no test given to applicants to gage their ability to function in the SCA or the local group. Once they have become members of your group you have to incorporate them in your plans somehow. You can't exclude them all together. They are members of your branch family.

.....Everyone is good at something. Sometimes you just need to take some time to find out what that something is and how to incorporate that. At least that is the way I tend to think. But I have been dinged for thinking this way and I can see why. It really introduces a level of risk to your plan that could be avoided by using someone else. Again, is that risk fair to your Team and to the branch as a whole?

.....But the feeling you get when you see someone succeed at something everyone around you said would fail? That's a pretty good feeling. Pays you back for the risk you took in trusting them, and maybe mentoring them just a little bit.

.....Just musing on the issue, and trying to figure out what I want to say to the new Protege and what I do not want to say as far as event planning goes and how to work with a Team. She has worked with some difficult people herself, and has done a good job of it. So maybe we can mind meld and come up with something together that we can put down in black-and-white. :-)

.....Aaron / Arontius.

Comments

[derekl1963.livejournal.com]

"Leading that type of Team would be fun and actually kind of peaceful and restful, with much satisfaction when complete. Well worth the time and energy that was input to make it happen."

That's how the Crown team seems to be shaping up.

[krazyfiberkat.livejournal.com]

In the scenario provided, big event little time, most experienced autocrats/officers would not blame someone for taking the most expedient route. However, you could end up causing hurt feelings, lack of volunteers, etc., etc, etc... But one thing I have always believed is Teams do not have to be small, nor do all things need to be set in stone. Wiggle room is good. Creativity can be your friend. Everyone who wants to help, can be helpful. You just have to look at what needs done and assign accordingly.

Managers can have Deputies to work with... Though you need to make sure that you don't assign a new worker bee to someone that likes to play close to the chest, because communication is key so that you have an automatic backup. Added bonus, you will find out where that new worker will fit in the reliability list.

If you have someone that is reliable and can get things done, but doesn't play well with others, they can be tasked with items that allow them to help but don't need that interaction with the team other than the autocrat.

In the long run, IMHO you can satisfy the most people by trying to work with all those that volunteer. But I don't autocrat much.

[tsuruko-sensei.livejournal.com]

Maybe you could discuss this hypothetically with your new protege and see what she thinks. It could be enlightening.

[angharadalbanes.livejournal.com]

I think the Crown event in a tight time frame scenario is useful as a way to discover what sort of leadership style you have, because one naturally gravitates to what seems most expedient in such a focused situation and what is comfortable in order to preserve sanity. ;-) Our barony alone contains many effective leaders, all with different styles, and each of those leaders would handle such a situation differently. Some would work only with tried and trusted people, others would put out a massive all-hands call, while others would fall somewhere in between. I think tsuruko_sensei has a good idea: ask your protege, and let her think through that hypothetical process. Talk about it with her. Then ask her again in a year and see what, if anything, has changed in her answer. ;-)

[khalja.livejournal.com]

I always pick my team. I pair up new people as assistants to various department heads. If I end up having to put a person with who I've never worked in charge of something that has to happen, I have a back up plan. Sometimes by back up plans have back up plans.

I'm pretty inclusive and I like to give opportunities to new people. with that said, I'm also quite pragmatic and understand that stuff happens. if stuff happens, I roll with it... find someone else or make a different plan.

My motto is always, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't need to happen.

I don't use people who are difficult to work with or who are disruptive to the team. I have a deeply held belief that everyone will find their own niche and their niche doesn't necessarily have to be anywhere near me. If I have an insistant difficult person, I will find someone who can gently and firmly direct them in a positive way. Part of that persons job will be to keep the away from me and to keep them from disrupting my flow.

i have to say, though, that I rarely have run into these kinds of issues. My special super powers are facilitation and praise. Put the right people in the right job. have a high level of expectation and make my expectations clear. Apply praise liberally.

(It goes without saying that acting like a grown up is part of my expectations.)

[khalja.livejournal.com]

And finally, here's my other thought... If I'm going to work my ass off at what is basically a second job for zero pay to put on a party for 1000 people, I'm going to do it my way. If people don't like my way, they can bid for an event themselves and run it their way.

I don't feel obligated to be all things to all people. I've made peace with that. (I'm also not a Baron... This would be why...)

Event Teams

[arontius]

...And you kind of hit the nail on the proverbial head for me. As Baron, I feel a little more obligated to be more 'Baronially Inclusive' than I might be if planning an event more on my own. But that could be just me, and it might be a mind-set that is not ultimately what is best in practice for the group as a whole. Something with which I'm musing over internally.

Otherwise, I definitely agree with everything you've said. I'd work for you on an event team. :-)

Intersting thoughts all around. We should do round table discussions like this on the Autocrats (or 'Event Stewards' :-)) web-site.

A.

[brighidross.livejournal.com]

Ok...I am the person you had this conversation with...full disclosure here.... and it was a very brief IM chat. I didn't realize that it would become a topic for discussion :)
I should possibly expand my thoughts on this...
You are right, this is a volunteer organization, I am also a volunteer. As Khalja said, if I am going to spend a great deal of time and energy I want to have fun while doing it. I believe my statement was, I don't use high maintenance people on important projects.
This is a conversation that you and I have had several times. If you have a volunteer, that annoys everyone on the team, is disruptive, and adds stress to every interaction, why would you want to put that person on a team of otherwise productive volunteers.
All this does is make the experience less fun, and less joyful for the whole team.
I am being a tad flippant here but really it makes sense to quote Mr. Spock (since we are all geeky here) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one"

That is the point I was making, not that new volunteers should be excluded from the team. Not that you should only surround yourself with your friends....but that you should surround yourself with people that let you expend your energies on the project and not expending the energy on managing personnel issues.
Even in leadership positions, it is not our jobs to fix people, especially if an multiple attempts have been made in the past. There are paid professionals out there to do that. I think our job is to provide opportunities to have fun while serving...
And remember, my opinion is worth exactly what you all have paid for it.

[khalja.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly.

This.

[copper-oxide.livejournal.com]

My thoughts are that I also want to have a couple of people who haven't autocratted in the past, but are interested. They are the ones who are going to take over someday and need some first-hand, successful experience.
But then coming from the small, transient, branch I come from, if I didn't constantly have new people as team members I would have no one. ( ornerie was one of my "new people" once, so was mirandanoel)

Followers and Leaders

[(Anonymous)]

I don't have a LJ account but read posts from time to time. As a former SCA member, I think that you are missing a very important part. If you want to micromanage people to make sure that things are done your way, you will attract followers who tend to require lots of supervision and instruction. If you want to attract efficient leaders, you need to let them lead and do their job without getting in their way. Letting them begin something only to step in at the end because you think you can do it better only makes them not want to volunteer again. The SCA tends to have an overabundance of OCD people who just can't seem to relinquish control. It is the reason I quit the SCA because it no longer became fun when the same people were always calling the shots.

Re: Followers and Leaders

[arontius]

What you say is valid. I'll have to admit that I have fallen into this trap a time or two. But I have worked at leaning to control that OCD behavior, sometimes even successfully.

But I would also hope that if a volunteer were to feel as if they were being hopelessly micromanaged that they would feel comfortable enough with me to approach me and tell me, politely :-), to back off a little bit. When we actually have some dialogue, we can reach an agreement where we can both get what we want and move the plan forward.

Good thoughts.

A.

Re: Followers and Leaders

[ayeshadream.livejournal.com]

I think there is an important difference between micromanaging, and effective support and oversight, but ultimately it's the _perception_ of either that is what a person may come away with.

I think an effective project manager and event steward should have regular (not frequent, just a regular intervals) for all those team members they are working with. This allows the team lead to check in, find out if their team members are struggling with any issues or needing any support.

Perhaps if the mileposts are understood by everyone, and the same check in is used for all the team members it would help reduce the feeling of being singled out or micromanaged, and hopefully instead feel supported.

I personally come at this from the perspective of someone who is not on a "go to" list, and completely understand that it's because I don't yet have much experience beyond extremely specialized or local events. I plan to work toward this by asking those who do have the experience to work with me, and mentor me, and most importantly to watch and listen when they give me feedback on how to run a successful event.

[angharadalbanes.livejournal.com]

I thought you were just juggling things in your own head, but since others have given you specifics about what they would do in the time-restricted scenario, I might as well, in the hopes you'll find it useful. ;-)

As the Event Steward in such a situation, I would make a list of what needed to be done and construct a timeline. Then I would approach people on an individual basis to form the core team. Not all of them would be the usual suspects, because some of our newer people have really useful skill sets, and haven't yet been burned out/overcommitted/decided they must always be in charge. ;-) Each of these core people would be free to take on whatever deputies they needed to get the job done. With the timeline in mind, I would check in periodically with each of the core folks, to see how things were progressing. I very much believe in surrounding myself with good people, and letting them get on with it.

That being said, I must confess that - for a large event - I have never had the privilege of heading up a team entirely of my own choosing. Those core teams had been pre-selected by another committee, and each team had at least one problem person. None of those problem people would have been on the team if I had been given the choice myself. Each of them, ultimately, required special handling: One needed what I would call micromanagement - which I detested doing. Another didn't do half the job and lied about it, so I had to step in and do the rest of the job myself. Yet another person needed all kinds of touchy-feely intervention because she couldn't communicate her needs effectively with certain other members of the team. The most aggravating one finally needed to be directly and truthfully called out about her attitude - which I also detested because I really, really, really don't like confrontation. Mind you, each of those problem people are incredibly useful in very limited ways, but not as a "head of department" so to speak.

I totally believe in second and even third chances, but folks need to earn them. I also believe that there are people who can see the big picture and should be in charge, while there are people who excel at being the "point-and-shoot" type - give them a very specific job and let them do it. It has been my experience that while big picture people can function as point-and-shoot people, the reverse is almost never true. When in doubt, start someone small.

This is all, in the end, supposed to be fun. Since part of the fun in planning the party is the camaraderie of the group anticipating how cool the event is going to be, anyone who is disruptive or causes undue stress on the rest of the team should be redirected to a less interactive role. Yes, we all know that S. C. A. frequently stands for Socially Challenged Adults, and we attract so many of them because we are so tolerant. However, being tolerant is not synonymous with condoning unacceptable behavior.

[monkeyjunk.livejournal.com]

I needed this post right now. Thanks.

[pernell-camber.livejournal.com]

Why on earth would it matter if the difficult person is a paid member? What does that have to do with it?

Paid Members.

[arontius]

Well, the argument is that all paying members are the decision makers of a group, because they've actually gone that extra step to make their voice count by paying for a membership and supporting the organization. So, following that logic, if they are members, and their vote has weight, how much should their opinion be taken into account when event planning?

I'm not actually saying that this should be an accepted practice, I'm just throwing it out for consideration. If I stopped to consider every opinion of the 200 paid members of the Barony, I'd never get anything done. But it is a consideration.

A.