By Dr Sandy Geyer, June 2026
If a Pipe Major from 1850 walked into a pipe band rehearsal today, much of what he saw would probably feel familiar.
There would be a leader. There would be followers. There would be standards, expectations, hierarchy and traditions.
Yet if that same Pipe Major walked into a modern workplace, school, university or community organisation, he might be far less certain of what he was looking at.
Over the past two centuries, leadership theory has evolved dramatically. Our understanding of how people learn, communicate, contribute and respond to leadership has changed alongside the societies in which we live.
This observation became the starting point for an international webinar on Sunday night on pipe band leadership – attended by players, leaders, tutors and educators from South Africa, Scotland, England, the United States, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Malaysia.
The question we explored together was not whether pipe band traditions should change.
It was whether our leadership approaches have evolved sufficiently to help people thrive within those traditions.
To understand why this matters, we first explored the evolution of leadership theory itself.
From the Great Man Theory of the 1840s, which proposed that leaders are born rather than developed, through the Power and Authority models of the early 1900s, to more contemporary approaches such as Transformational, Servant and Authentic Leadership, our understanding of leadership has changed significantly.
What is particularly interesting is that these leadership theories evolved in response to changing historical contexts. Industrialisation favoured hierarchy and authority. Later periods emphasised shared goals, adaptability, motivation, personal development, service, authenticity and self-awareness.
As society changed, so too did our understanding of leadership.
Yet while leadership theory has continued to evolve, many of the structures through which people experience leadership have changed far less.
Schools, sporting organisations, military environments and, yes, you can probably see where I am going with this – pipe bands, often continue to operate within leadership frameworks that would feel familiar to the theorists at the top of the leadership timeline.
This is not necessarily because those structures are wrong. In many ways they have served us remarkably well.
However, it does raise an interesting question.
What happens when people spend most of their lives in workplaces and communities that increasingly value participation, collaboration, influence and personal agency, only to return to organisations that still rely heavily on hierarchy, authority and followership?
Could our pipe bands be experiencing a growing gap between the expectations people develop in the wider world and what they experience within band leadership structures?
And if so, could some of our challenges around retention, succession and engagement be falling into that gap?
Alongside me was co-host Bronwyn Heywood, known to many as the Cotswold Bonnie Piper. Bronwyn and I both hail from Benoni, South Africa, and neither of us could have imagined (thirty-eight years ago when we met) that we would one day be helping facilitate a global conversation on leadership within the pipe band community. Bronwyn was a superstar and managed the technology, questions and chat with calm efficiency, allowing me to focus on facilitating the discussion itself.
But back to the tradition discussion:
Tradition remains one of the great strengths of the pipe band world. It provides identity, continuity, history and a powerful sense of belonging. Most of us joined pipe bands because we were drawn to something larger than ourselves.
What we explored together was whether tradition alone is enough to develop future leaders and sustain healthy band cultures.
Several participants reflected that while tradition gives us a foundation, leadership determines what we build upon it.
Perhaps the question is not whether tradition should change, but whether our leadership approaches have evolved sufficiently to help people thrive within the traditions we value.
In many ways, effective leadership is about empowerment. It is about helping people contribute meaningfully, develop confidence, take ownership and grow into leadership themselves.
When viewed through that lens, tradition and leadership are not competing ideas.
Tradition provides the roots.
Leadership helps ensure the tree continues to grow.
To explore how we approach leadership as individuals, we spent time looking at the McPersonalities framework. One participant raised a question that perfectly captured the practical application of the discussion.
“Is there an ideal combination of personalities for a Pipe Major and Pipe Sergeant, or a Pipe Major and Drum Sergeant?”
I could not answer this at the time so I will do so here.
My experience is that the strongest leadership teams are rarely made up of identical personalities.
Different leadership styles create different points of connection within a band. Some players naturally relate to decisive, action-orientated leaders. Others respond more readily to relationship-focused leaders, analytical thinkers or highly enthusiastic communicators.
The strength lies in the combination.
Different personalities bring different perspectives, notice different challenges and create different opportunities for trust and connection. Together they provide a broader leadership reach than either person could achieve alone.
Understanding these differences also helps leaders understand themselves. Knowing our strengths is useful. Knowing our blind spots may be even more valuable.
If you are unsure of your blind spots when it comes to the McPersonalities, there is a very simple solution.
Ask the members of your band. They almost certainly know already. In fact, there is a reasonable chance they have discussed it amongst themselves at some point 😊
Another question generated good discussion.
“Is it sustainable for a band of thirty people when only four seem to be doing all the work?”
My response was that it depends entirely on who you ask.
If you ask the twenty-six, it may be perfectly sustainable. If you ask the four, you may receive a somewhat different answer.
Most of us have either been one of the four, know one of the four, or are quietly wondering whether we might be one of the twenty-six.
An important leadership question lies in this scenario.
When only a small group consistently carries the administrative, organisational and developmental responsibilities of a band, is the problem really commitment?
Or is it leadership?
Leadership, at its heart, is the empowerment of others towards achieving shared outcomes. It involves creating clarity, defining purpose, establishing expectations and helping people understand how their contribution matters.
When people feel ownership, they are more likely to contribute.
When contribution becomes concentrated in too few hands, leadership structures may need as much attention as musical ones because many of the challenges facing bands today, are not primarily musical.
They are human.
Retention.
Succession.
Belonging.
Conflict.
Volunteer fatigue.
Trust.
Culture.
These are leadership challenges.
The encouraging news is that leadership can be developed.
The webinar received an average participant rating of 4.8 out of 5, and within forty-eight hours, the recording had already attracted more than seventy additional views, reaching more people than attended the live event itself.
That suggests these conversations may be resonating far beyond those who were able to join on the night.
One of the aims of the webinar was that participants should leave with something practical, not simply another conversation. The recording includes access to a resource pack containing leadership tools, McPersonalities guides, key slides and research resources that can be used immediately within pipe bands by Pipe Majors, tutors, committee members and developing leaders.
The purpose of the webinar was never to provide all the answers.
Leadership is a lifelong learning journey and I am still very much on that journey myself. I can only share what I have learned through my studies, my leadership experiences and my observations.
My role is simply to open and hold the space. The real value comes when those ideas meet the lived experiences of others and the conversation begins.
I hope this will be the first of many such conversations exploring leadership, culture and belonging within our bands. Future sessions may explore topics such as conflict management, tutor leadership, leadership under pressure, inclusion and belonging, trust-building and the preparation of future band leaders.
I would also welcome additional panelists and contributors from across the pipe band world. Some of the most valuable insights during the webinar came not from the presentation itself, but from the questions, reflections and experiences shared by participants.
For those who were unable to attend, the recording and downloadable resources are available here:
The future of our pipe bands will always depend on musical excellence.
But perhaps it will depend equally on our willingness to understand the people behind the music, develop future leaders and create environments where individuals feel able to contribute, belong and grow.
Because while great bands produce great music, great leadership creates the conditions in which great bands can thrive.
Dr. Sandy Geyer is an author, educator, business leader and competitive piper living in New Zealand. She holds a doctorate in entrepreneurial leadership preparation (DPP) and works internationally in leadership development for students, teachers, and business owners.