Liability of charisma
When you make decisions or take actions, are they determined by whether they would be deemed acceptable by the leader, teacher, or other authority figure?
I answered yes numerous times throughout my own conducting training and while watching others teach conducting.
I find it interesting that conductor training usually involves scenarios driven by 1) pleasing the personality that is in the position of authority (the teacher), 2) being attracted to that person's charisma and using it as a lens through which we make decisions, and 3) viewing that person's artistic purpose or interpretation as the one and only. The more famous and established the teacher, the more normalized and motivating are these status drivers.
Here are two common scenarios:
When teaching score study, the teacher often gives a play-by-play prescription on how to navigate the score - such as go faster here, conduct in 4 in this bar, and then in 2 the next bar. This is the way it's done; it's the way they were taught themselves by their teachers. There is not often discussion about what led to these decisions or about how to develop one's own interpretation. To defy or question these handed-down interpretations means defying the teacher, their teachers, and tradition. There is no space for rethinking nor discovery.
When teaching rehearsal techniques, what often happens is the teacher gets on the podium and does a "let me show you how it's done" demonstration by rehearsing the ensemble themselves - doing all the work for the student, while the student is supposed to learn from osmosis. Yes, it is intended as teaching via demonstration, but imitation is no substitute for actual experience.
The student ends up with copious notes on the page and lots of rehearsal phrases to pull out of their toolbox, but the student lacks the decision-making know-how and practice that would have led them to making those decisions and gaining those rehearsal phrases - therefore, they lack true ownership.
The understanding of the score becomes quite hollow, and the student often does not have compelling reasons to justify choices -- after all, these were not their choices to begin with. And rehearsal skills are lacking since the student didn't get the actual experience of reacting to circumstances in real-time. The creativity of identifying the problem, failing to solve it, and rethinking solutions are all missing in this process. Instead, what they simply have are out-of-context comments to throw at musicians.
I have seen these strategies celebrated as the norm, especially in professional training programs, and I remain unconvinced that these methods result in the most self-sufficient, fulfilled artists.
***
I have personally witnessed this in tutoring music theory at the doctoral level for over a decade. Musicians are not well-practiced at thinking for themselves and rarely see the reason behind the tasks they are obliged to complete. However, when the task is seen as a process of discovery and asking "why" questions, suddenly it becomes an interesting activity that is full of purpose, both informing or challenging decisions they can make themselves about their own music making. I'm always shocked at how simply articulating the purpose of the exercise transforms the musician's mindset and makes the task so much more impactful and sometimes even enjoyable.
The students have convinced themselves that what they're doing is worthwhile through being asked questions. People are often the best people to convince themselves if that option is available.
Adam Grant talks about this important point in his new book Think Again (more here). He says, "By asking questions, rather than thinking for the audience, we invite them to join us as a partner and think for themselves." Now, this was in the context of debates, but I think it is applicable in many other situations as well.
So, why is this so difficult within the context of academic training for musicians?
I think it's because we don't first unlock a perspective in the musician that positions purpose front and center as the key motivator. Why are they being asked to learn something? How does it challenge their own preconceptions about the music? How does it make them a more creative performer? How does it give them more ownership in their creative work?
Also, I see that, even when musicians are given an extraordinary music theory education with purpose in their undergraduate years, the purpose mindset deteriorates quickly due to lack of application. And when they reach their doctoral studies, the mindset is mostly non-existent. And there is even less hope for those who did not start off so strongly.
***
The scenarios above result in a kind of learning based on 1) passing information from teacher to student and 2) valuing a teacher's charisma and personality as the driver for decisions and actions.
It's much easier to say, "Tell me what I need to know, how I could fix this problem, or what I need to do to make myself credible," than to say, "I'm going to try and solve this problem or answer this complex question on my own."
Examining the information on the score as clues to be pieced together takes effort. Making mistakes and discovering alternative solutions in rehearsals take time. But both result in a sense of purpose and ownership. We might miss a clue, fail at making sense, or make ineffective choices, but every step of the way hones and solidifies the responsibility of ownership, integrity of thought, and personal purpose. With their own sense of responsibility, integrity, and purpose, they can act with confidence, conviction, and (well) purpose. There is no desperate attempt to see things through the lens of someone in the position of authority or to gain approval from those higher up in status.
***
When we are conditioned to value personality and charisma for why we make decisions, we should be careful of its liability.
Author Jim Collins talks about the "liability of charisma." He explains that charismatic leaders lead the group to focus on the facts through the lens of the leader, which may prevent the group from seeing the "brutal facts" (Collins' term) as they truly are. Non-charismatic leaders help the group focus on the facts as they are perceived by the outside world. In the latter case, there is more objective clarity for the group to make sound decisions.
In addition, the liabilities of charisma include 1) people doing things to please the leader and not to serve the purpose of the organization, 2) everyone allowing the leader to be the only person with ideas, and 3) the organization becoming too dependent on the leader and wouldn't know what to do when the leader leaves.
Collins states, "A company's long-term health requires a leader who can infuse the company with its own sense of purpose, instead of his or hers, and who can translate that purpose into action through mechanisms, not force of personality."
***
In the field of music, we often worship those in authority, especially those who have strong charisma. They define our rights and wrongs. They tell us what to think. They impose their sense of purpose onto us, sometimes even in a well-meaning manner.
Considering that we may be victims to the liabilities of charisma, we can ask ourselves:
Are we making decisions to please the leader?
Do we feel internal conviction about why we are doing something?
When's the last time we had an idea of our own? And shared it with the leader or someone else in the organization?
If the leader were to leave, would we have the same sense of purpose?
Thinking about the answer to these questions may reveal that we are indeed victims of the liabilities of charisma.
Sign up to receive an email with each new post.
Visit my YouTube channel for all blog videos and my artistic work.
