Complaints vs. Action

[Kevin O'Beirne]

I've seen some threads here lately where some folks have complained that reenacting isn't more "realistic" in certain ways, whether in how battles are represented, to how field music is handled, and other issues.

To those who wish for better: Do you limit your views to this forum, or do you speak up to those who are in charge of your unit(s) (plural because many reenactors' home club is also part of a larger organization, like a battalion and sometimes even brigade-level organizations), or do you remain silent and merely wish for "things to get better"?

If more folks spoke up and asked for change, maybe it'd happen. Otherwise, the leaders--who often get a bit lazy after a while, particularly when they've occupied a position for more than a few years--assume that the rank and file enjoy the status quo and are more than happy to let things remain as they are; after all it's less work and certainly less controvrsial.

If you aren't satisfied with how things are at the events you attend, have you spoken up, or agitated for change?

[bill watson]

And while you're at it: When events that share your approach come along, do you attend? Or just complain that the events you do attend aren't what you like?

The solutions are out there, but, as Kevin's comments suggest, you need to move toward them. Doing the same things again and again and expecting a different outcome is one of the definitions of insanity.

[GrumpyDave]

In short. Will you continue to be part of the problem or, begin to be part of the solution? If you complain and do nothing, nothing will change. If you complain and do nothing, you might as well not complain, nothing will change.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

And while you're at it: When events that share your approach come along, do you attend?

Bill,

While it's tempting to turn this thread into a "why not attend better events?" thing, I believe that's been done many times in the past. No, that's not what I'm getting at with this thread. In essence, what I'm asking about is leadership: who's willing to engage in it, who's willing to make the leaders do their job, and who's afraid of their leaders. Most folks are willing to complain on the side instead of confront someone with fake captain's bars on his shoulders or collar. To me, given that this is a hobby, it's difficult to understand folks who'll endure what they don't really like rather than work to improve it.

That's my personal view. I suspect others' opinions and actions are different.

[tompritchett]

In essence, what I'm asking about is leadership: who's willing to engage in it, who's willing to make the leaders do their job, and who's afraid of their leaders. Most folks are willing to complain on the side instead of confront someone with fake captain's bars on his shoulders or collar. To me, given that this is a hobby, it's difficult to understand folks who'll endure what they don't really like rather than work to improve it.

In some cases, talking with the leadership can be productive and in others, the leadership can develop the attitude that they always know best and rarely are receptive, and sometimes can become outright hostile, to suggested improvements. I served under one commander who leaned more to the latter side and ultimately found that I had to find a new home. Of course, when Bill Rodman as my current Bn commander, I am fortunate to be serving with an excellent example of the receptive commander.

Also sometimes the fault is not always with the formal leadership of the unit but rather with the informal leadership of the unit who will resist any changes and/or improvements beyond the status quo. In such units, any leader that listens and tries to enact suggestions for improvement runs the serious risk of being voted out of position.

[Mint Julep]

Who puts these people in charge? Who can remove them?

A man is only a leader when others follow him.

[indguard]

First of all, 90% of people are sheep to the 5% who are shepherds. [Deletion - too close to a common tag-line and, consequently might set off another round; THP]

Then, pile on top of that with the fact that of the 5% who are willing to step out, only 2% of them are good, solid leaders.

So, finding someone who is willing to take that step forward and then be worth everyone investing their loyalty in is not as easy as it might seem.

It's very, very easy to grumble, whine and complain, but another thing entirely to deal with all the disparate personalities, cobble together a plan, and make it work. A lot of people here seem to think all we have to do is "read the history" and it's all answered and easy after that. And, while all the technical questions might have an answer that can bear mere emulation, there is far more to running an event or battalion than just "doing what they did."

Anyone who says different has not organized and run very many different events or have not dealt with a wide variety of people.

Worse, people who come on here and complain don't really WANT to work with anyone. They just want things their own way and that is the end of it. And when any little thing goes against their own ideas, why then the whole world sucks.

I've spent many years "agitating for change" with varying degrees of success. But, over all, I am very pleased with my 24 years in this hobby. So, I can answer that I have done my best.

And with websites like this being far more "agitation" than help, I just have to say it is far harder in the doing than just SAYING things should be better!
_____________
A proud 2%er

[tompritchett]

Who puts these people in charge? Who can remove them?

A man is only a leader when others follow him.

My point was that in any organization there may be two sets of leaders - a formal group that is elected or appointed in some manner and an informal network that may set the tone of the organization. This can become readily apparent in dysfunctional units which are becoming split into factions and cliques centered around two sets of informal leadership groups - one of which may or may not involve the elected leaders of the unit. If any of you are involved in units where there is a clique that is always bitching and complaining, you can usually ultimately isolate the original source of the dissatisfaction to a few key members (the informal leaders) who the rest of clique is sheepishly following. In an ideal case, the elected leaders of a unit will also be the informal leaders and almost all will follow their lead. In a non-ideal case, the elected leaders may actually be pawns of informal leaders who are playing the role of a political boss or king-maker.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Tom,

While there are some leaders--put that word in quotes if you prefer--in reenacting who are resistant to change, not all of them are like that. However, your post gets closer toward what this thread is about: How can change, when it's necessary, be effected? When should it be pushed and when should it be "left"?

Certainly, there's a number of mini-dictators in the hobby. Whether their members can deal with them or not is probably a different topic.

[tompritchett]

However, your post gets closer toward what this thread is about: How can change, when it's necessary, be effected? When should it be pushed and when should it be "left"?

Exactly - both with the formal "dictators" and with the informal leaders within a unit who will fight tooth and nail against any improvement. Unfortunately, in those two cases ultimately the change may very well be finding another home.