There was a common syndrome I often observed in orchestra culture, regarding people that I labeled as “Climbers.”
In orchestra culture, your ranking within your instrumental “section” (especially in a string section) is a very big deal (although I suppose it’s a big deal in any group of primates). While most people in major orchestra culture are very team oriented, there was always at least one person in the bunch who was much more interested in climbing up the seating/ranking ladder than they were in the collective success of the group. They took the group success for granted, and put all their energy into obtaining the “perks” of higher seating . . . not the least of which was more money for sitting in that first chair.
A big part of the necessary mutual trust between managers and players in an orchestra is the understanding that getting promoted within a string section should be based on fairness, i.e., a combination of talent, skill, experience, and leadership ability. Honoring that expectaion is important, because when your business is that of expressing emotion, you have to make sure the players are not twisted up emotionally over something other than the the emotions of the piece they are playing. Even so, the the “climbers” sought to do an end-run around these rules, and when they succeeded, it had a major negative impact on the team’s performance.
Since “climbers” rarely possessed the musical and personal qualifications to be promoted to the leadership spot in a string section, they sought promotion by increasing their political skills. They would become very adept at dealing with the personnel managers (a skill which, I confess, the average classical musician is woefully inept at).
Unfortunately, once they got into that first chair leadership position, these “climbers” immediately became the object of the section’s enmity and contempt. But even if that enmity did not exist, there was a much more vexing issue: they possessed few, if any, of the basic skills required to effectively lead the team that they were now in charge of. Up until that big final promotion to first chair, all of their skill development and focus had been on pleasing the “higher-ups.” Once they got the desired promotion, they were totally disoriented by the need to dealing with the “lower downs.” Doing that is, after all, a completely different skill set.
Lacking any other reference, they would usually just assume that the section players they were in charge of had the exact same motivation as they had, i.e., to “climb” up the ladder, when in fact for most of them, the biggest motivation was to make a meaningful contribution to the team goal. The lack of blind obedience, along with a lack of desire to “be the #1 person,” confused them to no end.
Of course, they were not really at fault here. The people at fault were the upper managers who did not recognize “climber syndrome.” If you’re in upper management, “climbers” will have a look and feel of being the most eager and helpful employees, and they will always have a kind word for you. Who am I to tell you who to promote, but in my experience, while such people are very nice to have around, they are not usually not very good at dealing with subordinates. It’s just not their thing.
You’re much better off promoting people that the subordinates already respect. In the end, those people are doing the leading anyway. If you promote the wrong person, no one will ever say it to your face, but the team will always harbor a certain amount of contempt for you for having fallen for a fast talker, and not seeing the bigger picture.
(c) Justin Locke
Justin Locke is a management coach specializing in the subtle emotional issues of managing people. There are more articles at right. To have him assist you and your organization, email him at justinlocke1@gmail.com or call 781 -330-8143.
