Results

    The first outcome of note is that of the twenty-two respondents, nineteen are actively teaching musicians.  The remaining three were all volunteers for the interviews, and they have significant pedagogy experience.  Two of the three did not teach because they felt they did not want the responsibility or feel capable of the commitment to students at this time, and the third was looking forward to having students.  I was quite surprised with the prevalence of teaching musicians, and have no control group of musicians who are specifically not teachers.  I will therefore limit my discussion to an analysis of results from the sample as a whole, making some comparisons with the Allmendinger, Hackman, and Lehman findings from 1991.

    Regarding their motivations for teaching, the survey group had a remarkably balanced response.  To the statement, “If I teach, it is mostly because I need the money,” eleven people responded in agreement (between agree slightly to agree strongly).  To the statement, “If I teach, it is mostly because I enjoy it,” there were also eleven people in agreement.  The most significantly correlated data on the survey were these two questions.  There was a -0.8 correlation value, meaning that most people that answered one question more positively answered the other more negatively.  Almost certainly the wording and placement of the questions added to the polarity of the responses.

 In the interview group, six of ten said that they actively pursue teaching opportunities, and eight said they would teach even if they had no need of the income.  One particularly interesting response was that of a musician who said that if money were of no issue, she would teach a number of students who could not pay for lessons just to provide the opportunity for the young people.  Three people mentioned how time and energy constraints made them wary of the negative effects that teaching could have on their performance in the orchestra, but that they were vigilant on behalf of their artistic integrity.   Furthermore, all ten remarked that not only did they learn from teaching, but that what they learned improved their own performance on their instrument.  That group of ten includes the three people who do not currently teach.  In the interviews, all of the musicians commented positively on the value of teaching to their own playing.

    The statements that elicited the most positive agreement on the survey were similar to those Hackman mentioned. For the statement, “I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well,” the cumulative response was 6.3 out of seven and the standard deviation (variety of responses) was lower than any other item (sd=0.57).  There was a mean of 6.1 in response to the statement, “My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well,” (sd=1.1).  These were the only two single statements that achieved a mean score within one point of the end of the scale.  They demonstrate the level of internal motivation the respondents feel.  From the interviews, the group of specific things people found most engaging were the artistic pursuits (9/10), the challenges related to a high level of artistry (6/10), the people they work with (5/10), the repertoire (3/10), and pursuit of a “bigger job” (3/10).  Included in the category of artistic pursuits are things like phrasing every note, the eternal challenge to be more perfect, and “gelling” with a section.  These goals certainly lead one to feel flow, competence, and autonomy.  They are all individual struggles for a greater good—for the section, the orchestra, or the audience.  Many people also mentioned the rush or excitement they feel in a performance. This satisfies the condition of relatedness in that the individual who performs well with the group when the group is at a high enough level often feels subsumed in the larger whole.  Two musicians commented that they felt really connected to the whole in this orchestra about 20% of the time.  Others, generally with leadership roles, felt it was their responsibility to be as engaged as possible all the time.  It seems that Nakamura’s conceptualization of vital engagement could be central to musicians’ commitment in this sample.

The statement that had the lowest satisfaction at 1.9 was, “The amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive,” (sd=1.2).  At 2.0 was the statement, “My own feelings are generally not affected much one way or the other by how well I perform this job,” (sd=0.58) referring back to the intrinsic motivation and personal engagement in the work.  There were three other statements in the range of 2-3: “The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I contribute to this orchestra,” (2.3, sd=1.5); “ The amount of support and guidance I receive from orchestra management,” (2.6, sd=1.1); and “The overall quality of the management I receive in my work,” (2.9, sd=1.0).  At this point, there are several factors to consider.  

During the interviews, I learned many things that inform how one should read the results regarding the musicians’ attitudes towards the management.  Because of my absence, I was not aware of these events as they were happening.  I will attempt to provide a short but reasonable account of the climate of the orchestra during the time surrounding the survey based on letters from the Executive Director to the musicians, the letter from the Musicians’ Committee to the musicians, and the accounts of the musicians I interviewed, some of whom are active participants in the current Musicians’ Committee.  I have limited sources and amounts of information, but feel it is imperative to provide the picture I do have regarding the responses to the survey based on the recorded public discourse on these issues.

First, there had been an ongoing debate about union involvement.  Last spring there was a card count in which approximately 92% of the orchestra affirmed their desire to unionize.  The management declined voluntary recognition of the union on the grounds that they preferred a full dialog regarding the decision.  During the month of November, the Executive Director, new to the orchestra since the last negotiations, held open meetings and wrote two letters to the musicians answering questions and expressing his concerns, and asking for the opportunity to keep the efficiency of two-party negotiation rather than involve a union representative.  A few days prior to the survey, members of the last Musicians’ Committee sent a letter to the orchestra.  That document cataloged a series of events wherein they felt they had been treated unfairly during the previous set of negotiations and urging the orchestra to join the union.  They referred to the minutes of the last negotiations which I have not, to this point in time, accessed.  It was in that climate that the survey was taken.   On December 2, the Executive Director addressed the musicians with a third document, and on December 4, the musicians voted 67-7 to join the union.  When interpreting the survey results, one must consider the context in which the data were taken.

    In the interviews, all conducted after the union vote, I still heard repeatedly in slightly different words how the issues related to earning enough money to live usurped some of the energy that the interviewees preferred to spend on the quality of their artistic product.  All of them said at least once that better pay would contribute to their happiness in their career.  Another issue addressed by nine volunteers was the issue of communication between the musicians and the management.  The musicians I interviewed were not happy with what they felt was the conflict of interests between musicians and management.  Many phrased it as a desire to know that the administration, the board, and the musicians were all working for the same ultimate goals.  That is reminiscent of Schuller’s commentary.  From the interviews, in the musicians’ minds the goals appear to be first the quality of the music (repertoire and performance), and second a sense that the management would acknowledge the dedication it takes in order to perform well.  One way several people mentioned the management could show their appreciation was through an improvement in wages and benefits commensurate with the musicians’ level of commitment.  Other topics that received mention as “disengaging” were difficult work relationships (5/10), and the conductor (4/10).  One could see these areas as being unfulfilling parts of any job where there is a hierarchy (coworkers and boss, so to speak).  

    Overall, the level of hope in the interviews was very high, and the things that musicians say would make them happier in this orchestra are very specific.  When there is this much of an issue surrounding the monetary compensation, I believe it is fair and productive to share some specific information relevant to the interviews.  I surveyed and interviewed from the pool of “core” musicians, or the ones that the orchestra considers full-time during the 31 week annual season.  Some members have 130 guaranteed services (often performing an extra 20-30, paid in the months the services are rendered) yielding a net wage of $14,000 paid over 12 months.  There is a mid-level contract that guarantees $17,000, and the principal players whose contracts include performances with the smaller ensembles have 225 guaranteed services and $29,000.  Health insurance is offered with a 50% subsidy, and there is a pension plan available with about $1,500 matched annually.  In order to play in this orchestra at this pay scale, some musicians who have been in the orchestra for a number of years have won auditions after their undergraduate degree.  Others who have joined the orchestra more recently have taken up to twenty to forty auditions in the past, but not many more during their time with the FWCS.  The musician with the lowest reported duration as a full-time professional orchestral musician is two months.  The longest orchestral career in my sample is fifteen years.  The musicians are aged from their mid-twenties to somewhere around forty.  

The tension around the living wage for many musicians is real and present because in order to keep this job, one must commit to all of the services which are scheduled during different times of day, precluding most other kinds of employment except teaching students.  In fact, no respondent answered that they had any jobs other than musical performance opportunities (orchestra and gigs like weddings and substitute work in other orchestras) and teaching.  This picture is one of a high level of commitment.  The musicians I spoke with feel that they have to work very hard to make ends meet and perform at a high enough level.  Those with work experience in other fields said they work much harder for considerably less pay than they did and could in another field.  The fact remains that they love their life in music enough to stay.

This compares much as one might expect to the 1991 survey results for the Life and Work article.  They grouped their results into eight categories.  For the graphic comparison of the two data sets and standard deviations in these eight groups, please see Appendix A.  There were four areas where the FWCS data were significantly different from the larger pool:

CATEGORY	1991 MEANS	FWCS MEANS	Difference
Satisfaction with Compensation	3.867	2.107	1.760
Job Involvement	4.700	3.136	1.564
General Satisfaction	5.609	4.235	1.374
Satisfaction with Management	4.285	2.937	1.348

(Significance calculated using upper and lower confidence limits for FWCS data.)

In each of these groupings, the FWCS musicians were less satisfied.  A score between five and seven is a positive reaction, a score of four is neutral, and a score less than four is a negative response.  The orchestra’s responses could be interpreted as dissatisfied with compensation, slightly dissatisfied with the management, and neutral about their general satisfaction.  They also slightly disagreed with the statement, “I live, eat, and breathe my job,” which was the measure of job involvement.  The other four categories that were not statistically significantly different are satisfaction with job security, satisfaction with work relationships, satisfaction with growth opportunities, and internal work motivation.

    Within the FWCS data, there are some interesting correlations among the groupings.  The highest of these is between satisfaction with growth opportunities and satisfaction with compensation (r=0.621, prob.=0.003).  This means that the people responded similarly to both categories.  There was an inverse relationship between satisfaction with work relationships and satisfaction with growth opportunities (r=-0.47, prob.=0.036).  The mean for the category of work relationships was higher than that for growth opportunities, so perhaps that is the link.  Lastly, there was only one correlation with time in the orchestra, and that was general satisfaction (r=0.441, prob.=0.04).  The musicians who have more years of orchestra experience demonstrate some trend towards higher general satisfaction, while those with fewer years of orchestra experience show some trend towards lower general satisfaction.

In further response to the findings Hackman presented regarding orchestral musicians as having aspirations for a solo career (Judy, 1996), most of the musicians in this study made the decision to pursue an orchestral career in high school, and the word “soloist” was never spoken in this set of interviews.  Based on the discussions I had with this group and their descriptions of what they found most engaging about their work, I believe that is because they were genuinely aspiring to the career of an orchestra musician.  Hackman also addresses the weakness in the field regarding recognition for individual musicians.  I have attempted to present the specific ways in which the musicians that I interviewed feel they could be happier individuals in this orchestra.