: Personally, the only way I have ever seen to deal with this is to have one : cast manager who cannot be fired except by theatre management.  Then there : is no takeover.  Either you are a part of the cast that person develops or : you aren't, case closed.         Dictatorships are always the best form of government, assuming you         have a good dictator (therein lies the problem).  They aren't fair         and they have no safety net if/when the dictator goes nuts, but they         are intrinsically capable of better discission making then         democracies. -With a bad dictator of course, they clearly are also         capable of making far worse discissions.  Republics are better then         democracies, but not by much.  Popular representation is an         insurance policy against the known evils of human nature.  It is         however, not without a price.  That price being that while such         systems are far less likely to make catastrophic mistakes, they are         also completely incapable of making the best discissions.         Indirectly this is why Judges in the US aren't subject to         reelection.         Almost without exception the best cast governments I've seen have         been some form of dictatorship.  There is often some indirect         representation such as department heads , but typically as         appointments not popular elections.  This isn't to presume the cast         has no say, far from it the casts have typically been very vocal and         well considered (see above about needing a good dictator for this to         work).  But what they don't have is the power to allow common bias,         ego, ignorance, and stupidity, combined with an outgoing         personality, to force bad ideas and decisions forward.         Everybody knows what they want, they just don't know what they         need.         One dictatorship method I've seen in a few Rocky casts that seems to         have worked out well to counter the possible problems of a single         ruler is the idea of multiple dictators.  Nothing close to a board         of directors (you know who you are, and once again, no you weren't         all that), but two or three at most sharing dictatorship         responsibility, keeping each other from getting burned out as         easily, and bitch slapping each other if/when they do get horrible         ideas in their heads.

Thank you both Becky and Byron for those well thought out responses. Its definately food for thought. However, heres the situation: My past tenure as DDT cast leader was elected, but basically a dictatorship in that I was then approved by theater management and told you go, so goes the show. We are sick of the constant change in cast leadership. So I was basically held hostage to the job by management. Not pretty when I decided I wanted out, considering they threatened to shut down the show and send back the print. I stayed to try to keep RHPS at that theater, which was ideal in many ways. Well we all know what happened next. Never mind. Still, I had my share of dissenters who thought they could do a better job (and maybe some could have, but didnt know the extent of seriousness on the part of the theater....they MEANT it). It got nasty on several occasions. Therefore in starting the travelling road show cast I am trying to put together, we decided NOT to have a cast leader to cut down on the crap. It was felt that we should be adult enough to have no need of a babysitter. All members were over 21, seemingly a good start. Not to be. One member, a long time friend and ex-member of DDT decided he and his partner were going to run things the way they wanted, and made it clear just last week they would brook no interference. It was THEIR cast, THEIR show, etc. For example, last Saturday they planned a rehearsal at 5PM. I dont leave work till 7, then had to drive downtown, park on a busy Saturday, whatever. I had informed them I would be there at 8, no options, sorry. This wasnt good enough and I was told disciplinary measures would be taken. Also they had arranged to have the DVD to rehearse, one member was bringing it. He forgot, and I was blamed for not having the DVD. It turned very nasty, and to make a long story shorter, both men quit, and told two others they had better quit or would no longer be welcome as friends. Hence four men have quit. Over what exactly? Monday, during a phone conversation I was told it was all my fault for being late thus starting a chain reaction. I was actually yelled at very loudly. Then I received the email informing me that my costumes could be confiscated by the two men. Excuse me???? My personal costumes??? The two men run a costume rental shop. Enough said. I have no real idea what happened. Its my opinion that the lack of a stated leader gave these two men the feeling they could grab power and having done so, turned into dictators running things with an iron fist. I was also told under no circumstances was I to ask CEI to be part of the shows. Its now moot since they have quit, but I cant see why it had to happen in the first place. Thats why I am looking for solutions, so this doesnt happen again. Bev Give yourself over to Absolute Pleasure T-Shirts!!

Amen Byron! Benevolent dictatorship with appointed heads is the only way to go. We have an election process at HOH. And with it comes a certain amount of burnout and sometimes less than ideal election results. Dictatorships have their problems too but I'll choose getting stuff accomplished over getting stuff talked about any day of the week. Larry.

Bev, Sorry to hear of your latest troubles.  I kind of saw it coming though.   When you wrote that there would be no initial leaders I knew there was going to be trouble.  I've read most everyone's posts and I don't have much to add to what they said.  I agree that a benevolent dictator (I like the term 'autocrat' better) is probably the best approach, but in reality that is seldom possible.  There are always people who think they can do it better and work from within the cast to foment change. Giving people a say in the process and possibly even a chance to share in the power minimizes the chance of agitation and sedition.  I've found that a triumvirate (or a 3-person Board of Directors), elected by the cast, works well in this regard. Each member of the BOD keeps the other 2 in check, and the responsibilities of managing the cast aren't dropped on just one person.   The responsibilities can be divided up however which way, but I've noted that a President, Vice president, and Secretary/Treasurer split work well for administrative duties. Performance related duties can be split among the same or different people by appointment of the BOD.  By appointing people to positions such as cast director and trannie director, you can *hopefully* get the person most qualified for the position and not the person most popular at that particular moment.  Also, if that person doesn't work out, since they're working at the discretion of the BOD they are more easily relieved and replaced. Also a firm set of cast rules are needed to keep a cast in order.  This should also include grievance procedures and a disciplinary policy. Persons in positions of authority should have fixed terms of office (which should be written out in the cast rules), typically 6 months or a year to prevent burnout and/or allow fresh blood and ideas a chance.  It is also a good idea to allow for auditions and recasting on a regular basis for the same reasons. In the end, with this system the cast is answerable to the BOD, and the BOD is answerable to the cast.  If someone with a Napoleon complex gets in power, you have 2 others with which that person must share the decision making.  Furthermore, with term limits and proper grievance procedures, the reign of terror will be limited.

Either you are a part of the cast that person develops or you aren't, case closed. But a cast is not just one person. The ideas, views and talents of everyone involved creates the cast as a whole. By making it a my way or the highway place, you wind up alienating a lot of people.