Negotiations

Several of our writers have mentioned musicians’ participation in standing or ad hoc multi-constituency committees which can influence the strategic direction of an orchestra. If the musicians are willing to participate in these groups, the communication can be invaluable, and it does give the musicians, who tend to be the stakeholders with the most longevity in the institution, as ongoing voice. However, some care must be taken for this process to be effective for all parties.

As mentioned, musicians should choose who participates. It is also important to determine whether such individuals are “representing” or if they come as individuals to the process.

Expectations must be managed in a multi-constituency group. There is an obligation for a respectful hearing and due consideration of everyone’s ideas, but there is no obligation for any one’s idea to be adopted. Nor will anyone necessarily have a closely held opinion changed during this educative process.

Active listening, reflective language, and other rules of engagement should be agreed upon, and as trite as it sounds, it is important for the different groups which comprise the committee to make time to get to know one another. If a board member is just a “suit” and a musician is just the “gal in the trombone section”, it will take a while for barriers to conversation to break down.

Finally, it is always awkward to have a planning process in which several important parameters are off-limits for discussion-size of orchestra, length of season, etc. However, as noted, this is where “unofficial” bargaining is likely to take place so it should be clear before the process starts that certain topics will not be entertained.

I have participated in several of these task forces in different orchestras, and I have found them professionally useful and personally rewarding when attention is paid both to process and content.

To Nathan’s heartfelt post, a digression of sorts:

Henry still says that, and so do some of the rest of us.

I will live with the history that some managerial misjudgment has resulted in overall bad business decisions in orchestras (and that includes promising musicians things that could not be reasonably delivered, as well as using resources on “excessive office staff and salaries, rip-off arts consultants and facilitators”), but I am not going to spend a lot of time making up for it. I believe such a history should inform our actions in future so that those decisions are not fated to be replicated. A definition of insanity, after all, is repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results.

My point is, to use Robert Levine’s phrase , that despite our history we must be committed to “growing the pie”. Examining practices in both the performing and administrative segments for opportunity, efficiency, and return on investment would be a good place to start. Can management create revenue opportunity by opening new “branches” in surrounding towns? Should we invest in real-time on-line ticketing software? (VSO’s on-line ticket sales went up 81% in just a few months with that decision.) Can it sell its telemarketing services to other arts organizations? Can the members of the orchestra look at certain work rules and see if they are helping or hindering flexibility in scheduling performances? How much do we want to earn, and how hard will we work to get there?

We can no longer depend on the kindness of strangers. “Just go raise more money” (my personal favorite) takes a whole lot more time and is a whole lot more unpredictable than consciously creating a market for music and filling it with the best “product”possible.

But I must sign off now to practice what I preach…..