Officers' Quarters: Last stop on the gravy train

What is the purpose of an officer? Most would say, "to run a guild." Here's where definitions begin to diverge. To some players, running a guild means little more than handling guild invites and occasionally managing drama. Those duties are fine if your guild exists for purely social reasons. Any guild that is actively raiding, PvP'ing in an organized way or holding official roleplaying sessions requires much more from its officers. Too often, the vast majority of those tasks fall on the shoulders of a single individual. This week's email is a cry for help from one such officer.
Hi Scott!
I am the leader of a Casual/Raiding Guild, and we've been together for 2 years by now. We were like 5 or 6 close friends that met each other at another MMO and founded a Guild. When we decided to come to WoW, we founded our Guild together, and worked towards its improvement. Today, we are one of the biggest guilds at our server, and we have a strong realm reputation.
Of course the guys that founded the guild with me were officers, including their spouses as we were all close friends, and founded the guild together. That was the right thing at that time.
They sometimes worked as counselors at some difficult times that we had, when I was lost and didn't know what to do or how to do. However, most of these guys never helped me at all with the "every day job" like recruiting, leading a raid, being the master looter, handling drama, or every other daily task that all the guilds have. Every single problem or drama that shows up, I need to solve by myself.
They couldn't even organize a single guild event or raid. Everything is under my responsibility and that is overwhelming for me.
Well, now, I have the feeling that these guys should not be officers anymore, however they helped me sometimes with some advice, and they founded the guild with me. Some of them are giving the game a break of 3 or 4 months.
I'm totally lost. Should I keep them as officers, as they occasionally give me some advice on how to lead the guild? Or should I take them out of the officer's position and make new officers that can really help me with the everyday job? I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. I'm pretty sure that If I take them out of the "Officer " position, there will be a LOT of drama for me to handle.
Can you help me??
Thanks!!
M
M, I don't blame you for feeling overwhelmed. No single person can lead a large guild and carry out all the accompanying responsibilities single-handedly. It's a one-way train ticket to Burnout Town.
Your officers are also riding a train -- the gravy train. They are enjoying the status and privilege of their rank, but they are not putting in the effort of supporting the guild. It's time for you to put an end to it. You can do this without causing too much drama and without insulting your friends. Here is what I recommend.
First of all, you have to square this decision with your own conscience. As to that, I hope you'll consider this point: Past deeds and occasional advice are not what keeps a guild going. Guilds survive only because their members, primarily officers, are willing to work hard to organize events, manage resources, resolve drama and recruit players to account for turnover.
Second, make a list of all the duties that running your guild entails. Every guild will have its own list depending on the size and the nature of the community, as well as what sort of in-game activities the guild supports. Don't just write down everything that you're currently doing. Include all of the tasks that you would like to see done but don't have the time to manage.
Third, communicate to your existing officers that you are overburdened. Explain that you can't keep up with all the needed tasks. For now, keep this conversation private among the existing officers.
Present your list to them. Ask for volunteers to manage each duty. Make it clear that you will not be disappointed if someone doesn't have the time or the inclination to help out any longer. Also make it clear that in order for any officer to retain the rank, he or she will need to choose and carry out at least one of the items on the list.
This strategy accomplishes two things. It delegates responsibility to the officers who are willing to help. At the same time, it weeds out any officers who cannot or will not help you. It gives them a way to bow out without a confrontation. They can simply say, "I'm sorry, but I can't help right now." They may feel bad about it, but at least they won't feel like you're "firing" them. You've put the choice squarely in their own hands.
As for yourself, you can either choose the duties you'd like to keep fulfilling, or you can delegate everything and help out with everything. The latter method can really pay off. You'll be able to pick up the slack when people fail, coordinate the efforts of your volunteers and make sure everyone has the support they need. However, it carries a risk that everyone will simply go back to expecting you to do everything. It may be better in your situation to define the tasks you are willing to take on and let others volunteer for the rest.
Give your existing officers a deadline of about a week to reply to your request. Otherwise, people may never give you an answer. If someone doesn't reply within a few days, remind him that you're still waiting for a response. Then, at the end of the week, you can safely assume that anyone who didn't reply isn't on board with the plan, and you can demote him.
For anyone who chooses to step down, be sure to thank him for his past service to the guild. Don't guilt him over the decision. He and the guild are better off this way. Let him know that he can be promoted again if he is able to help out in the future.
Finally, whatever tasks remain after this round of volunteering, advertise them among the greater guild population. Allow anyone in the guild who'd like to help out to do so (within reason -- a fresh recruit shouldn't become part of the loot council). You don't have to promote these new volunteers to officer status immediately. Just let them know that a promotion is a definite possibility in the near future if they carry out their responsibilities effectively.
Once all the items on the list have been chosen, post the list in a place where the guild can see who's in charge of what. Follow up with your volunteers from time to time to make sure they have been able to accomplish what they set out to do. Ask them if they need help. Don't be surprised if one or two people find themselves in over their heads and ask to step down once they've had a taste of the duties their role entails. At that point, you'll have to go through another round of asking for volunteers.
While you transition to this new leadership structure, your members may still come to you about every aspect of the guild. If you send them to the appropriate player instead of handling every query and suggestion yourself, that will help both your members and your volunteers to adjust.
Hopefully -- and eventually -- you'll have a stable core of officers with specific roles. That's the ideal scenario. However, circumstances could go the other way. You could find out that no one in the guild, officers or otherwise, wants to help you. That's the worst-case outcome. If it comes down to that, you should seriously question why you're spending so much time working for these players when no one is willing to work for you!
/salute
Filed under: Officers' Quarters (Guild Leadership)
Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
Friday_Knight May 17th 2010 1:30PM
This situation is unfortunately all too common. I've been through it three times with the same group of real life friends. Once in vanilla WoW, again in BC and again in Wrath. More often than not I was the guild leader, starting a guild so that my group of friends could all play together. Naturally they always all wanted to be officers. This just doesn't work. Everyone wanted power, jealousy runs rampant and the people stuck below the officers are always resentful.
Scott's method here is a very well-thought through and clearly comes from experiencing this sort of coat-tail riding before. It basically comes down to that you have to decide which comes first: your guild or your friends. If you're in large, well-established raiding guild, your friends are all not logging on consistently and you have plenty of other members that are reliable then your guild should take priority and your friends should really understand why. Give them notice of what you're doing. Give them a chance to get back into the fold if they want to. If they don't then demote them and find members who will.
Eisengel May 17th 2010 5:01PM
I've seen this exact situation shatter a guild completely. The biggest problem was that the one person doing all the work wasn't recognized as the one person doing all the work and wasn't the guild leader.
There's going to be some bad blood no matter what, but I agree. You need to just be firm and direct. If you're GL you say, "I've been doing this list of things, .... I can't do them all. Officer ranks will go to people who are mature, constructive, help guild members and contribute by consistently doing one of the following jobs: .... "
If you're not GL.. well.. you just tell the GL you can't handle it all, and then no matter what anyone says, just stop doing what you aren't comfortable doing. Sadly, I've seen guilds explode when one overworked person just says 'enough'... however usually the pieces band together and make a much better guild. I've been with a group of people who have been distilled through about 3 guild shardings, and the current group is pretty solid.
Fionualla May 17th 2010 1:30PM
Yes, that's a picture of the train to Mimiron in Ulduar.
Another idea in line with the suggestions in the article, would be to create a legacy rank in your guild for long-time veterans or charter members. This would be a rank used to recognize a player's contributions to the guild over a longer period of time. Such a rank can note a player as being important in the guild's history, even if they don't want to actively participate as Officers doing the day-to-day (or week-to-week) chores of running a guild. You could include members of this rank in guild discussions that involve long-range goals and other important decisions if you really value their advice and input.
expat28 May 17th 2010 1:40PM
The flip side of the coin is that there really isn't a limit or cost to how many officers you have - so why consider booting them? I'm a GM of an active 400 player guild and I catch myself once a year or so with the same feelings you write about. But ultimately YOU (and I) are the problem - not them.
Maturing as a GM (or a business manager) is a process that starts with you wanting to retain all the control because you are the only one that can "do it right" but this inevitably leads to the frustration you are experiencing. The next step is for you to ask yourself "what can I do to encourage more people to feel they have ownership in the guild"? Because I bet you that your guildies mostly think it's your guild - not theirs.
Do you seek out and groom new officers who enjoy leadership? Do you freely distribute raid duties to other members to coax them out - like taking turns at loot master or even just explaining the next fight on vent? Do you ask guildies who they enjoy grouping with that might make a good leader?
I don't agree you have to set ultimatums like "take part of the workload or get demoted" - no matter how nicely you say it. My officers are like my guild parliament - and I've promoted a lot of guys I personally don't like all that much. But they have opinions that are valued and they are a voice of a group of players I want represented in guild affairs even though I don't run around with them much.
I think if you look to yourself for solutions, you will feel less resentful of your friends and get back to enjoying what they have to say.
Zanathos May 17th 2010 2:23PM
If everyone's an officer, why bother having them? At that point it's not different than if everyone was a member.
BigBadGooz May 17th 2010 1:37PM
When I led a endgame guild in vanila (naxx 40 content) I had 3 officers dps tanking healing. Made things very simple. You run your assighnments or I found a officer who would.
rukamich May 17th 2010 1:38PM
That's some good advice. I'd like to add something that my guild does: we have a couple of types of "officers" in our guild--the type that do more of the standard "officer" type things--events, raiding, managing toons and the bank, etc. We also have a position for "retired" officers-- people who are taking leaves or just don't want the responsibility (or have the time) to deal with the more day-to-day grind that is being an officer, those folks basically have invite privileges, access to our officer channel(s) and forum moderation status.
Current officers don't mind the "retirees" being around to offer advice/help and it also helps ease some of the "is there anyone on who can invite?" issues when adding alts or new players to our guild.
(This guild celebrated it's 5 year anniversary earlier this month, so it's a system that has LONG worked.)
beltana May 17th 2010 1:41PM
We were in much the same position a while ago, with a lot of "legacy" officers who either played less or didn't really fulfill an officer role any more. As suggested above, we created a Veteran rank, and moved some of the guys in there - they still have access to the Officer channel, and the Officer section of the forum, and their input is always both welcomed and valued. We promoted a few members who's been with us for a while to Veteran too.
For the day to day running, we also promoted a few new Officers who were already attempting to shoulder some responsibility themselves - ones who were organising fun runs, helping out with tactics, or others who just showed good common sense, consistency and patience.
The Officer channel had never been so active; there is a wealth and a breadth of experience, views and help to draw on when we need to - although Officers are the only ones who get to "vote" as such. It's spread some of the responsibility round, meaning less pressure.
One thing I would say though is just to make sure that you have a clear vision for what the guild is, and where you want it to go, and that all your officers or potential officers share this before making wholesale changes. We're lucky in that we've all been together for a long time, and share the same vision for the guild. In the past however, we've had issues where newly appointed officers have attempted to drag the guild in a conflicting direction - there's always fallout, and it usually leads to some kind of Draamaas.
clevins May 17th 2010 2:09PM
Question for you - how does this appear to the regular member? Yay, the officer chat is lively and the officer forums on the site are too.... but are things that should be in guild chat happening in o-chat? Same for the forums. Does the guild feel lively and vital to people who can't see that stuff?
This is why I don't like Veteran status, etc. Unless it's "people who've been in the guild for more than a year (or more than two)" it's a clique. Cliques aren't good for the guild as a whole.
Killik May 17th 2010 2:31PM
People are moved to Veteran rank because they are less active in the guild, so I doubt it's leeching the life from gchat. It certainly hasn't with the equivalent rank in my guild. Mind you, we're primarily social so it would defeat the purpose to form an exclusive clique.
clevins May 17th 2010 4:29PM
@killik - I was wondering about their comments that o-chat has never been so lively. It's easy to have that and forget that members can't see it so the chat in game seems lively to people who can see ochat but dead to those who cannot.
It's also a problem to have veteran members who see ochat and regular ones who don't.... why does time in your guild matter? Perhaps new people have value to add. Why aren't THEY included? I can also see issues arising in that ochat isn't a place where the officers can discuss officer business - some of which might involve the Veteran members.
At the end of the day, I don't like giving some members more of a say that others when those people aren't going to have to live with the implementation. If you want other viewpoints, open it up to the guild as a whole - that's cool. But veterans who can chip in with their opinion but who aren't going to deal with implementation and fall out seem like they're getting the perks of being an officer without shouldering any of the burden.
TLDR version: Want power in the guild? Take on responsibility.
Gimmlette May 17th 2010 1:52PM
I call them "Einsteins". People who were officers but have stepped down, people who have the knowledge but not the time to be officers or people I am grooming to take over when a current officer steps down. (They will see this and now know what that rank is for.)
Scott's advice is spot on. You have to put the onus on them. "I am really overwhelmed and I need you to take over this duty." If they can't or won't, then you have to come back with, "Well, running the guild really takes some commitment from all the officers. I really value our friendship, but I need someone who can do this. Why don't I put you in this rank, where you're still valued and I'll get someone who can do this job? Then you don't feel like being in the guild involves chores."
It's going to be delicate and you may hurt some feelings, but you can't let them sponge off you. I always publicly celebrate the officers who step down, letting them and the guild know that although real life is taking more of their time (It's the only excuse I allow to be used and I've had officers resign for other reasons.), they are a valued member of the guild. The only time I demote officers (and it's a "demote" because that's what it says if the officer rank is higher than the rank they are going to. That's Blizzard's demarcation.) farther than the "Einstein" rank is when they were taking more than a month off. We have a rank for that.
The other thing to note is you are going to, if you don't already, resent these people. That's not good for your guild. It will come out in ways that will be more drama than simply asking them to step down.
Good luck. I think you'll find other people within the guild with fresh ideas, willing to roll up their sleeves and take the guild to new possibilities. That works for everyone's benefit.
aeleb May 17th 2010 2:21PM
@mmatt2630: plenty of people never made it that far in ulduar. no need to be rude or short.
zubbiefish May 17th 2010 4:09PM
The added rank idea is a fine one.
I was offered an officer's rank in my guild because I've done the job before, elsewhere, and I'm a reliable sort. I felt bad turning it down.
We have people who are officer rank that don't have any specific duties and don't really do anything more, or less, than I do for my guild on a daily basis. However, I'm one of those fools that takes the idea of the rank seriously so, knowing that I don't have the inclination to stress myself out over a game, I won't do the job. Adding in an additional rank that indicates a "resource" for the guild that doesn't have the "duty and responsibility" association that the rank of officer does might be a workable idea in my guild. It probably would fill a role similar to class leader. My current guild isn't big enough to really have a use for class leads so this is, maybe, something we can use.
Probably not until Cataclysm though, these are tough times for rocking the boat and trying to make changes that aren't, strictly speaking, required.
highRfrequenC May 17th 2010 4:45PM
My guild has gone through this more than once in the last 5 years.
Our GL has always first gone to the officer forums and posted very briefly that responsibilities are mounting up with a list of discussion points, and then scheduled a time for an officer's meeting on Ventrilo. Afterwards he did the same for the guild at large, setting a time for the whole guild to be online where he started with a statement of goals for the guild and then listed what it would take to accomplish those goals.
I was one of the officers that volunteered to step down during one of these house cleanings, being burnt out on leading all our raids. Out of the dozen or so that returned to general membership at some point in the guild history I think only two were actually upset about it, and even those two are still around.
If your officers care about the guild, and are given the chance to recognize that they aren't contributing as much as someone new might be, they aren't going to quit.
If they get upset about missing out on ochat, start a chat channel for just you and your original friends.
To the new leadership that you find, just make it clear that you still have the final say in every decision. Some folks may have ideas about how things "should" be run, and may try to change too much. It sounds like whatever you have been doing has worked well so far, so let them know that you are happy with the way it is, you just need help getting it all done.
Hoggersbud May 17th 2010 7:36PM
Never make a friend an officer.
An officer can be your friend. But that's not the same as making a friend an officer.
Amaxe-1 May 17th 2010 11:10PM
I've on occasions been an officer when my friends ran guilds. This was partially due to my friend being the asst. guild leader and partially because in TBC and early LK I actually knew a lot of the inns and outs of being an enh shaman back when heroism made us important (I think that info I had is obsolete now, judging by the wow.com articles on the subject) and being the highest level JC in the guild (I dumped it when Blizz removed the prismatic from the dragon eyes).
My duties were little more than "can you invite my alt?" and telling other enh shamans to "gear right dammit!" and telling them why their 1.6 speed daggers were not as good as 2.6 speed fist weapons and "Why the hell are you using frostbrand?" and having to explain why WF/WF was the best way to go (this was before WF/FT came around).
... and as for the JC factor, having the addon which allowed an auto reply to whisper helped a lot with the "Um, what kind of gems can you make?" /headdesk
So i suspect I'd be an officer who was more of problem than solution for the article.
Not all officers are good officers of course and I would be an example of one. The problem is, if you demote them suddenly, the first thought is going to be that it was done out of hostility. So make sure if you remove them from the gravy train, they know first that you want to make the officers the people who can help out.
Since I hate leadership, I think if they had said "We want to give these responsibilities to someone else" and left me with access to the Officer channel, i would have been fine with a demotion.
Carson May 17th 2010 11:52PM
I've had a similar problem in the past. Thing is, officers didn't really HAVE any privileges or anything. So we solved it just by promoting new officers who were willing to help out - there was never any real need to demote the old officers who weren't doing anything useful. Past service earned them the right to chat in the officers' chat channel, there really wasn't any other benefit they were gaining from their rank.
dalroi May 18th 2010 5:57AM
You say that your guild started as a group of friends, but that you're now one of the biggest guilds on your server. Ask yourself this: Are you and your friends comfortable with the size of your guild?
Maybe part of your problem is that because you have so many members the amount of work that needs to be done is gigantic. Maybe one reason your officers are "riding the gravy train" is that not all your officers feel that the guild should be as large as it is now. If they pick up any of your tasks it's likely to be a lot of work to do it well and just as likely that they don't care about many of the people they're doing that work for.
I've been an officer in a similar guild - the GL wanted it to become the largest guild on the server. We attracted all kinds of people that we, as officers, didn't like at all! Organising instance runs (we weren't even trying raiding back then) and events took a lot of effort from a few officers and the amount of drama (often about loot) was outrageous. We found out that while we were playing a game intended to be fun, we weren't having fun a lot of the time. My conclusion: Having a lot of members isn't something to be proud of, having a lot of friends is.
In the end we (the officers) only saw one solution to get back to a manageable guild; we quit the guild and started a new one. That was several years ago and it's still running strong. We have become very specific who we allow to enter our guild, they have to be people that we expect to get along with (we don't pick them by gear score, although we consider it a nice bonus).
Basically we're still a group of friends, but we've increased the number of people we can call friends. We're just about large enough to be able to organise 25-man raids where we don't have to rely on allied guilds or outsiders.
We lead our new guild as a council, with the GL being mostly a figurehead function required for some tasks that only a GL is allowed to do (like promoting someone to officer status or choosing a tabard). Every one of us has tasks, some people do more than others. Several of us are raid leaders or raid organisers (we split the raids up by size and content and every raid organiser is responsible for a number of them), others are responsible for fun events or recruitment. I handle any drama that occurs, but I'm happy to say I haven't been very busy with that. Sometimes we notice that some members are getting active, for example by volunteering to lead raids or set them up in the in-game calendar, and often these people end up in our council after a while. Sitting council members sometimes take breaks too. Our main motto is that everyone's in it to have fun, so that should be our number one priority.
I'm not saying you should do the same thing. It's what we did and we're happy with how it turned out.
beltana May 19th 2010 8:25PM
Just to respond to clevins' comments / queries - gchat is also lively; it always was, officers / vets chat in there as much as anyone. We use /o for example in raids to discuss things that have been raised in class channels, suggested tactics etc, so that the RL isn't being spam whispered by 24 other people. We use it to discuss recruitment, rules, concerns that aren't a breach of someone's privacy, to schedule raids and we use it to chat.
Veterans are people who have been with us for a long time and contributed a lot, but who maybe aren't active as much or maybe can't commit time to raid lead or organise; if you want, it's a recognition of how they've added value to the guild - they are not all ex officers.
Officers are those doing the organising - we've promoted people to officer after only a few months in the past - time in the guild does not matter. Some of out vets are still active raiders, so some do live with the implementation - they can suggest things, bring the benefit of their experience and they have the good of the guild at heart - after all, that's why we chose them - but officers have the final vote.
And of course new people have a lot to bring to the table - a fresh set of eyes, different understanding of what a guild is or could be - we also have a section in the general (members') forum not only to post outcomes of officer meetings, but also to have polls on whether people think we should (example) use the 5% buff, to promote open discussions on anything and everything to do with the running of the guild - with polls, open questions, or just "how do you feel about" stuff.
I believe that having ranks and using them shows the other members that their contribution is noticed, and appreciated, and rewarded. I understand how you feel it could be cliquey; I'm probably biased but it doesn't really feel that way in our guild - we've had that in the past, but we're in a good place currently. It's taken us a long time and a lot of gradual changes to get to where we are, and it works for us :)
Back on topic - good article, I hope M gets it sorted.