Director or Leader?

How to Gain Control of the Choir

(and How to Give it Away)
Paul E. Guise
Red Deer College, AB, Canada
What makes for a successful choir? For such a simple question. it is remarkably difficult to
answer. One problem which impedes our progress in resolving the question is the definition of
success. Different sources have different definitions of success. with each showing its own
particular biases and emphases. The Oxford English Dictionary defines success as. "The
prosperous achievement of something attempted" (Simpson G Weiner. 1989). while the
Random House Dictionary of the English language defines success as. "the favorable or
prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors" (Flexner. 1987). Webster's Third New
International Dictionary defines successful as. "resulting or terminating in success: having the
desired effect" (Gove. 1986). While none of these definitions gives us a criteria of success. one
common underpinning is that success has to be evaluated in human terms. A successful choir is
a successful group of people.
In this paper I will look at recent trends and developments in the research of leadership.
including power structures and sources of interpersonal power. After considering this
information in terms of choral implications. there will be an informal case study where many of
the introduced concepts are applied.
The twentieth century saw the development of several approaches to studying leadership.
each with its own strengths and weaknesses. In order to establish the conceptual framework
for later discussion. let us consider a few of the recent phases in leadership research.

Trait-based Theories
Throughout history. and peaking in the twentieth century around 1940. there has been an
interest in those characteristics exhibited by the leaders of our societies. be they royalty.
politicians. business leaders. military leaders. etc. In analysing these multiple characteristics.
researchers worked toward distilling a checklist of leadership traits. based upon the assumption
that it was these characteristics which caused the great leaders to be great. Traits commonly
identified as characteristic of leaders include such items as intelligence. education. abstract
reasoning. self-confidence. initiative. and good people skills. In recent times of war. personality
tests based on these assumptions have been used to predetermine which individuals will be put
into leadership roles. and the practice continues to this day in many settings we encounter in
our daily lives. from job interviews to political elections. Unfortunately, the correlation between
many perceived leadership traits and successful leadership is very weak (Bennis G Nanus,
1985). To further the problem with a trait.based approach. there is no evidence that the causal
relationship is as it seems: did the great leaders of history rise to positions of power because
they had the traits of leaders. or did they develop their traits once in the positions of power
(Dailey, 1995)? Because of these significant weaknesses to the trait.based approach to
leadership, new theories evolved. The next theory to receive widespread consideration was the
behavioural theory of leadership.
Director or Leader? How to Gain Control of the Choir 133

Behaviour-based Theories

In this next phase. researchers shifted their attention away from personality and toward
the behaviours which distinguish successful leadership. Consideration of situations in which
leadership is important (or occurs) was integrated into this approach. and the analysis of direct.
observable behaviours allowed for a much better understanding of cause and effect. solving
one of the problems with trait-based theories. Unfortunately. behavioural theories began to
focus too closely on the effectiveness of specific leadership styles. and this effectiveness was
often removed from its situational context. Thus certain leadership styles were promoted as
more effective than others. seemingly without consideration for the particulars of each
situation. Again there was the problem of uncertainty in determining a causal relationship: did
the observed behaviours cause certain situations to develop. or did the situations result in
corresponding behaviours? While the behavioural approach was largely discredited. it was (and
is) readily applied in many circumstances. as its condensation into a readily understood
structural model made application very efficient (if rather ineffective) (Rausch G Washburn.
1998). Instead of a mere list (as with the trait.based approach), this time a chart of attributes
was devised. often balancing two aspects of leadership (Fleishman. Harris. G Burtt. 1955).
Having largely abandoned the previous approaches to understanding leadership.
researchers refocused their search for new methodologies. At this point they began to
emphasize the importance of interpersonal relations and power structures in leadership, which
led to recent transactional theories of leadership. Before looking at these transactional
theories. we should first clarify the power structures upon which they are based.

Power

Power cannot exist ina vacuum. A power relationship can only exist where two (or more)
individuals each have some capacity to communicate and act. It is important to emphasize that
it is the capacity that is of importance. not necessarily acting on that capacity. Indeed. some
might argue that more power is held by not acting when one has the capacity to do so.
There are several possible sources of interpersonal power. Among them are legitimate.
referent. expert. reward. and coercive power (Dailey. 1995). legitimate power is that which
accompanies an official position such as "conductor." In being appointed conductor. one is
given the power to make decisions such as repertoire choices. section leads. soloists, and so
forth. legitimate power is (usually) the exclusive domain of the conductor; the other four types
are available to any member of the ensemble. Referent power is held by those who conduct
themselves in the manner of someone who is well-respected. such as a former member. As some
members may have differing opinions as to the status of the referee. it may be the case that
not everyone accepts this reference as a source of power. Expert power is held by those who
are acknowledged as having extensive training and/or experience in the field. In a multi-
member ensemble such as a choir there will be an unofficial hierarchy of expertise. from the
seasoned veteran to the absolute beginner. Each member will have a different sense of this
hierarchy based on their knowledge of and interactions with other members. Reward power is
often seen as the domain of the conductor (for example. providing a favourable formal review
of a chorister), but this does not necessarily have to be the case. Members who bring in treats
for the others hold a strain of reward power. as do those who can arrange for special awards
134 Guise

or (perhaps) secure funding for the group based on their performance. This last example can
also blur into the realm of coercive power, where there is the threat of action attached to
certain expectations. Coercive power needn't be negative, as it is often used to propel a
sagging rehearsal or generally "light a fire" under the singers.
Taking the above into consideration, one can see that power is not exclusive to the
appointed director of the ensemble, but is in fact shared by all members of the group. This
sharing structure is not a fixed entity, but develops over time as different members take on
different roles and adapt their relationships with other members. It seems to follow, then, that
the true structure of the ensemble will be detennined by those actions taken by all members,
while the capacities of all members will detennine the range of structures possible for the
group. Given the complexity of individual personalities, group structures should be adaptable
over a very wide range of possibilities.
It is also apparent from the power relationships demonstrated above that expertise in the
technique of conducting is only one component of successful choral leadership. The conductor
who pursues a narrow, technical approach to conducting-or the educator who espouses such
an approach-will be leaving the larger issues of human relations largely to chance. While few
conductors will hold great power in all areas simultaneously. those who recognize they are
merely a component within the overall ensemble will be most able to adapt their behaviour to
maximize their effectiveness.
At this point it is useful to reconsider the earlier issue of causal relationships, rephrased as
follows: is leadership cause or effect? The answer seems to be that it is both: leadership is an
ever-evolving, multidirectional process which is shaped by interpersonal interaction and external
environmental factors. There is no one leader. Having established that power is shared in
ensembles, let us return to the historical review of leadership research, looking at transactional
theories of leadership.

Transactional Theories

This recent development in leadership research has attempted to combine earlier trait- and
behaviour-based approaches into more comprehensive, inclusive models. The most significant
change is the incorporation of situational contexts, often ignored in behaviour-based studies.
which helps one detennine the situational compatibility of the behaviours or traits being
discussed. Some theories, such as Fiedler's contingency theory, operate under the assumption
that a leader (with a particular, fixed approach to leadership) must be selected who will fit the
situational context of the organization (which does not change) (Fiedler, 1967). A notable
problem with this theory is its implication that a change in situational context should be met
with a change in leadership. On an ongoing basis this is likely to cause more problems than it
solves, as group nonns and communication structures will be in an almost constant state of
upheaval. Other theories, such as House's path-goal theory. are based on a transactional
model, where the role of the leader is to serve as a reference, pointing out goals and potential
paths to their completion (House, 197\). This theory allows that the leader can be a flexible
individual. one who is capable of adapting to a range of situations. Unlike Fiedler's contingency
theory, where transactions can be analysed as isolated events (one by one), House's theory
looks at transactions collectively as points within a long-tenn trend.
Director or Leader? How to Gain Control of the Choir 135

If we consider that a choir is made up of many individuals with many, often differing.
needs and goals. we can see that a complex web of relationships exists in even the smallest of
chamber ensembles. We should also review the previous assertion that power structures can
exist between any two people. Building upon this. there will be power relationships between
any two members of the ensemble (unless they fail to communicate, which will happen more
frequently the larger the group). It is because of this fact that a simple. top-down hierarchical
structure shows little relation to the reality of any musical ensemble. While the appointed
leader may have extensive power in any or all of the aforementioned categories, that power is
only involved in conductor-member interaction and is not a prominent factor in inter-member
interaction.
The implications of this complex situation are apparent to many conductors. While the
conductor may have an excellent relationship with each member of the ensemble in a one-on-
one selling. inter-member problems can hinder group function. Conversely, a group can
function very effectively despite a lack of strong leadership (Le.• an ineffective conductor). The
effectiveness of the group is distinct from the effectiveness of the leader. This is not to say,
however. that these factors do not influence one another. Group norms are developed through
the collection and balancing of individual norms. and thus individuals with high standards and
expectations will tend to increase the "average" or group norm (Guise. 2000). However, if
there is too large a gap between group norms and a few individual norms, these individual
positions will be thrown out as unrealistic or deviant (Janis. 1959; Guise. 2000).
Different groups in different situations have different leadership needs. If there is a great
deal of task uncertainty. the leader is often called upon to clarify the group' s mission and to
provide a method of achieving specific goals. If. however, members of the group have a solid
understanding of the objectives of their respective positions. the leader's role changes. For a
leader to attempt to clarify tasks and objectives in such a group would be redundant. for the
leader is not necessarily able to add anything the members themselves do not already know. In
such a group, strong leadership (in this sense) can have a detrimental effect on group function
and effectiveness. The leader in this situation must accurately assess the specific competencies
of each member and tailor any leadership to areas of weakness or confusion.

Case Study and Possible Implications

While the previous discussion has shed some light on how and why choirs function. the
question of applicability comes immediately to mind. In an effort to show how these concepts
may be applied. I recently created an informal investigation to test the findings and assess the
range of ensembles to which these findings might be applied. This was not a formal study.
although such a project is now underway. It must also be completely clear to the reader that
this is not intended to be a procedural checklist. merely one possibility of how group dynamics
and human relations can be integrated into choralleaming.
The investigation was run simultaneously within three groups at a post-secondary music
institution: a concert choir (40 members). a studio choir (six members). and a chamber music
ensemble (10 members). The first two ensembles consisted entirely of singers. while the
chamber music ensemble was made up of five pianists, three singers. and two violinists. These
were their primary instruments: several members were multi-instrumentalists.
136 Guise

The investigation was run over the course of two semesters, with the procedure running as
follows. In the first semester, students in these ensembles were asked to read a brief paper
about group dynamics and needs. Each student then submitted a two page paper on how this
might impact their function within the ensemble. No further discussion on the topic took place.
and class evaluations were conducted at the end of term to assess their experiences and
approval of the learning process.
In the second term, a more student centred approach to needs assessment and curricular
integration was taken. Each student was assigned a partner within their ensemble. With that
partner they discussed two points: I) what are my goals in this course for this semester, and 2)
how can I achieve these goals while simultaneously helping the ensemble meet certain group
goals? After each pair discussed these points and generated a list, the ensemble met as a whole
to discuss each individual's list. Goals were then revised, and members were given two weeks
to test the viability of their goals before handing in a two-page formalized statement of
objectives. Most importantly, each pair was directed to meet on an ongoing basis to discuss
what progress they had made and what pitfalls they encountered. These meetings continued
until the end of the term, usually on a weekly basis.
Midway through the term, members were asked to submit a two-page status report on
their progress toward their respective goals. They also included a brief section on their
meetings with their partners. At the end of term, each student was asked to submit a two-page
report on the success or failure of their partner in each item from their partner's earlier
statement of objectives. A mark out of 35 was assigned by each student to their respective
partner. To prevent collusion, students were told that any marks which were significantly
outside my own assessment would result in a reduction of twice the difference, applied to both
members of the pair. The marks submitted were unmodified and made up 35% of each
student's term mark. All students were made aware of this grading system at the beginning of
the term, and they generally kept detailed notes of their own progress as well as that of their
partner (they were not required to do so).
The results were generally quite positive. Comparing the first and second semester in the
context of this study, each of the ensembles showed a marked improvement in performance
standards and rehearsal effectiveness. Students remarked that they felt more involved in the
process of their own education, and that they had developed strong bonds with both their
partner and other members of their ensemble. One student wrote, "There have been noticeable
changes and improvements in different areas for everyone. Through our goals set at the
beginning of the semester we have greatly improved our abilities. These goals helped us to
push one another, and ourselves, to reach them."

Another began her final report with the following words:

In my last couple ... papers, I included individual goals that I wanted to achieve this term.
Along with evaluating my own personal achievement, I have also been assigned to evaluate
another individual. I think this was a great idea, because I have made friends with my
partner L. I didn't know l at all before the assignment, but over time we developed a
friendship. We see each other every day, and often ask one another how practicing is
going. By doing this, I think we become more motivated because we want to share our
improvements with each other.
Director or leader? How to Gain Control of the Choir 137

This investigation took very little class time to administer. The initial discussion of goals
took approximately 30 minutes. and each paper was prepared outside of class time. Student
meetings were also conducted outside of class time. Best of all. very little additional
preparation or marking time was required. Given the ease with which this project was
integrated into the curriculum. there seem to be few barriers to its adoption by most choirs or
other musical ensembles. Possible obstructions to this style of learning such as poor inter-
member relations or low group norms can be readily addressed by carefully assigning partners
and encouraging individuals to raise their personal standards. thus raising the average standard
within the group.
Pending future formal studies to confirm the effectiveness of this type of needs assessment
and curricular integration. there are very few reasons not to implement this type of learning
environment. I look forward to researching this area in much greater detail. and encourage
other choral educators to consider the possibilities such an approach may reveal to their choirs.

Reference List

Bennis, W .• and Nanus. B. (1985). leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row.
Dailey. R. (1995). Organisational behaviour. Edinburgh: Pitman.
Fiedler. F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hili.
Fleishman. E., Harris. E. & Burtt. R. (1955). leadership and supervision in industry. Columbus. OH: Ohio
State University Press.
Flexner, S. (1987). The Random House dictionary of the English language (2"" ed.). New York: Random
House.
Gove. P. (1986). Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language. Springfield. MA:
Merriam.Webster.
Guise. P. (2000). Group dynamics and the small choir: An application of select models from behavioural
and social psychology. In B. Roberts & A. Rose (Eds.). The Phenomenon of Singing 2. SI. John's, NF:
Memorial University of Newfoundland.
House. R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 16, nI-
339.
Janis, I.L et al. (1959). Personality and persuasibmty. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press.
Rausch. E.. & Washburn J. (1998). High quality leadership: practical guidelines to becoming a more
effective manager. Milwaukee. WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Simpson, J., & Weiner. E. The Oxford Eng/ish dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oarendon Press. 1989.