Do subs make us replaceable?
Throughout my life as a conductor, I've encountered numerous times the common scenario where I have to find substitute musicians - either working with a personnel manager or on my own. We'd pull out our list of musicians and start contacting them frantically. Often, we are in a bind and need to have the role filled last-minute. Nevertheless, it always works out at the end. We can always find someone who could do it, and the rehearsal or concert is able to go as planned.
Whether it's last-minute or planned, this is a common fire we put out in producing orchestral concerts. However, this idea of replacing a member of the orchestra so systematically never sat well with me. It always felt impersonal and clinical. And I didn't really know any other way to go about it.
In this hustle, our mindset can become one where musicians are replaceable, like a machine part. It may not be replaced with the exact same part, but the goal far too often is finding something serviceable - and for that, available options are usually plentiful.
We end up separating contribution with its contributor. We start to see that many people can supply the same contribution. And the contribution is not unique to the specific contributor we had.
I sometimes wonder about the musician we're replacing: Do they know how valuable they really are to us? Do they know how much we miss them?
And I also wondered about the substitute we end up getting. It's not easy to jump in cold toward the end of a process, even if they know the repertoire well. Do they know why they're there (besides getting paid)? Do they know how they bring value to the team besides just filling in a hole?
***
What would happen if we put a bit of effort into connecting contribution with contributor?
Well first, It would increase morale by highlighting individual accountability and ownership for the musician. More importantly, it helps leaders individualize a role by getting specific. It is no longer the clarinet two part that we need to get filled, but it becomes filling in Sandy's rhythmic reliability and deep tone that she offered in that role. The latter is much harder to replace with just anybody!
What if our premise is that every musician is truly irreplaceable - not because they are the best musician, but because of their specific contributions - uniquely positioned within a constellation of contributions throughout a large team.
What if we spelled it out and shared with the musicians what their specific contributions are? What if we crowdsourced what their peers believe are their contributions? What if we gave agency to musicians to openly recognize each other's contributions (like how Zappos allows employees to give coworkers a $50 bonus)?
The potential in these ideas give both musicians and leaders the clarity in understanding and appreciating the specific value someone brings. When a substitute is needed, they may be filling in exactly those points of value of the musician being replaced, but they also bring other contributions that are different - not better or worse, just different.
Recognizing all this in some way would elevate the feeling of having a substitute beyond that of a serviceable part replacement. So when a sub is needed, we can do two things:
Tell the replaced musician what is irreplaceable about their contributions, what we would miss.
Tell the substitute what irreplaceable contribution they are about to bring to the group, how we'd benefit from them specifically.
Simply saying, "We'll miss you" or "You're number 1 on our sub list" is not enough.
It takes two minutes to be specific and thoughtful, but it makes a world of difference for the individual musicians in their relationship with the group and how they understand the value they bring.
If you find this interesting, sign up to receive an email with each new post.
Subscribe my YouTube channel to explore accompanying videos and my artistic work.
