Performer-Pedagogues:
A
Study of One Orchestra
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Jeanine Tiemeyer
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; January
2003
SUMMARY
=
=
&=
nbsp; This
is the paper describing my major fall term research project for professor
Howard Gardner’s class at the Harvard Graduate School of Education
entitled “Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet.” My aim was to compare reported lev=
els of
career satisfaction between musicians who only performed and those who were
also teachers. I surveyed man=
y core
members of the Florida West Coast Symphony and had follow-up interviews with
ten musicians. I am grateful =
to the
orchestra management and musicians who made this project possible and hope =
that
the results will be interesting, informative, and helpful to the organizati=
on.
The first part of the study provides some background
information regarding career satisfaction among symphony orchestra
musicians. I included Gunther
Schuller’s commentary about American orchestras in 1979 and the study=
by
J. Allmendinger, R. Hackman, and E. Lehman describing the work environment =
of
symphony orchestras in
=
&=
nbsp; The
center section of the document is a description of the particular methodolo=
gy
of the study and the conditions that limit the interpretation of the result=
s. The most important consideration i=
s the
climate in the orchestra regarding the vote to unionize. I believe that the open discussion=
of
musician-management relations contributed to the tone and consistency of
responses among musicians. Ev=
en
with the high level of hopefulness after the unionization, however, there w=
ere
some very articulate comments that could provide some insight into possible
future improvements for the organization.
=
&=
nbsp; The
results were surprising because of the musicians’ consistent dedicati=
on
to teaching students. Though =
there
were three of twenty-two respondents who answered the survey as non-teacher=
s,
all three of them were interview volunteers who had significant teaching
experience. Everyone in the s=
ample
was an experienced pedagogue.
Furthermore, they unanimously mentioned that they thought teaching
students had a positive impact on their own playing. I found a dedicated group of pedag=
ogues. Though I did not have a comparison=
group
within the orchestra, I was able to draw some other comparisons and
conclusions.
= &= nbsp; The FWCS data was similar to the 1990 composite results in four categories. First, internal work motivation was extremely high. According to = the interviews with the FWCS musicians, there is a tremendous commitment to music. Each person commented = on how he or she enjoyed performing as a part of an orchestra; they loved the feel= ing of contributing to a larger whole. Another category worthy of mention is satisfaction with work relationships. This orchestra= appears to have a high degree of appreciation for each other, and the musicians vol= unteered that information in the interviews. The remaining two categories that are similar to the 1990 composite = are satisfaction with growth opportunities and satisfaction with job security.<= o:p>
=
&=
nbsp; The
four areas that were significantly different were also quite a bit lower for
the FWCS. The biggest differe=
nce
was with compensation. Not on=
ly was
this a consistently negative result in the survey, each interviewee mention=
ed
it several times. It was such=
a
large issue that I had to describe the current situation for the musicians =
in
some detail. Financial necess=
ity
was one of the reasons that many people were teaching more private instrume=
ntal
lessons than they would ideally like to. They also felt some anxiety about
maintaining the quality of their performance in the orchestra in spite of t=
he
large amount of time they had to spend earning enough money—balancing
financial stability with individual practice time. In other words, if the orchestra
provided a better wage, the musicians reported that they would be more able=
to improve
rather than only protect the quality of their orchestral playing. The other three categories where t=
he
musicians were significantly less satisfied were job involvement, general
satisfaction, and satisfaction with management. Regarding the dissatisfaction with=
the
management, I tried to consider the context of the survey and the interview=
s in
my interpretation of the results.
Though the survey held quite a negative picture of the management ju=
st
before the union vote, the interviews (held afterwards) were significantly =
more
hopeful about the potential outcome of this year’s negotiations.
=
&=
nbsp; For
my conclusions about the performer-pedagogue, I found that even though the
musicians earned up to half of their income from teaching, they felt that t=
heir
training was appropriate to the activities in their careers even though they
had no significant pedagogical education in conservatory. Three of the ten interviewees had up to one year of pedagogy class while pursuing their deg=
rees
in music, but none of them felt that the class even affected their
teaching. With such a widespr=
ead
emphasis on pedagogy in their working life, I found it strange that among t=
his
sample there was such a shortcoming in their education. The story in the data raised many =
more
questions about the conservatory training musicians receive and how that
relates to preparing future generations of young musicians for orchestral
careers.
=
=
=
![](3D"PPSComplete_files/image005.gif")
=
Performer-Pedagogues: A Study of One Orchestra
Some people have musical families. I was, happily enough, one of thos=
e born
into a long tradition of Western classical music. My parents, some extended family, =
and most
of our family friends either are or have been involved in symphony orchestra
life as musicians, administrators, or board members. In my family, all of the performer=
s are
also teachers. Among my music=
al
mentors, I always saw performer-pedagogues who were deeply engaged in their
musical lives. Being an orche=
stra
musician, music teacher, and a lover of the genre, I am interested in
discovering the relationship of performance, pedagogy, and career satisfact=
ion.
There is a very limited pool of information
regarding the career satisfaction of symphony orchestra musicians. The researcher Erin Lehman (1995) =
wrote
and excellent article on the literature about symphony orchestras since
1960. She describes a great v=
ariety
of references that look at the organization of the symphony orchestra in
different ways. Lehman was al=
so one
of the researchers who compiled data from over nine hundred musicians in
seventy-eight orchestras in four countries to paint a picture of the
organizations’ struggles and triumphs in different parts of the globe
(Allemendinger, Hackman, and Lehman, 1996). For this project, I have gathered a
short list of authors who clearly express points of view related to the cur=
rent
trends in symphony orchestras in comparison to references regarding personal
well-being. The picture does =
not
look good for the job satisfaction levels of orchestra musicians.
Early in my research, I found one article wi=
th a
strong point of view. Gunther
Schuller (1986) is a renowned conductor, composer, and MacArthur Fellow.
In 1990, J. Allmendinger, J.R. Hackman, and =
E.
Lehman began the large-scale study of symphony orchestras and their musicia=
ns I
mentioned above (1996). Part =
of
their survey was focused on the levels of satisf=
action
and motivation as compared to thirteen other professions. They found that orchestra members =
ranked
seventh out of the thirteen professions in general job satisfaction with a
score of 5.4 on a seven point scale (1996, p. 201). Just above the=
m were
the federal prison guards, and just below were “Industrial production
teams.” In the
category of “satisfaction with growth opportunities,” orchestra
musicians ranked ninth, with a score of 4.9 out of seven. This seems to =
confirm
on some level the difficulties that Schuller described.
In an interview for Harmony magazine about the study, Dr. Hackman remarked, “=
The
good news is that for … the level of internal motivation, symphony
orchestra musicians are pushing the top of the scale—their average sc=
ore,
across all orchestras and countries, is 6.2 out of a possible seven. No group or organization we have s=
tudied
scores higher. Orchestra play=
ers
are, indeed, fueled by their own pride and professionalism” (Judy, 19=
96,
p.2). The level of player
commitment to performing well is very high in all the orchestras they
studied. Hackman continues,
“Yet their overall job satisfaction, and especial=
ly
their satisfaction with opportunities for continued growth and development,=
are
not pushing the top of the scale.
The professional symphony orchestra, it seems, does not provide as r=
ich
and rewarding an occupational setting for musicians as one would hope”
(p. 3). For some reason, the
situation seems out of balance.
This study found confirmation for a high level of commitment and a h=
igh
level of dissatisfaction among orchestra members. Perhaps this is not so
irreconcilable. As one
explanation, Hackman says, “Especially challenging for orchestras is =
how
to provide players with meaningful recognition for their contributions to t=
he
orchestra—especially tutti players, many of whom have real difficulty
reconciling their early hopes for careers as concertizing soloists with the
reality that they will be playing in unison for the rest of their orchestra
careers. Applause from the
audience, passed on to the orchestra as a whole after the conductor has smi=
led
and nodded and bowed for a while, just doesn’t
do the trick. Few
orchestras in our sample have found ways to provide individual players (oth=
er
than principals) the kind of respect and recognition that we all seek in our
professional work” (p. 5).&nb=
sp;
He addresses many possibilities that he found important in his
research. I sought more infor=
mation
on the psychological factors that could contribute to a greater sense of we=
ll-being
among musicians.
In the literature on motivation and well-bei=
ng,
two particular articles drew my attention.=
The first was “The Nature of Vital Engagement in AdulthoodR=
21;
(Nakamura, 2001). In this cha=
pter,
Nakamura presents certain examples of conditions where engagement is more
likely for adults. If people =
feel
that their work is both meaningful and includes “experiences of enjoy=
ed
absorption (flow)” (p. 8), and this state is cont=
inued
over time rather than as an isolated event, they can develop this kind of
relationship with the world. =
She
mentions specifically the possibilities of engagement in “creative wo=
rk
and service work” (p. 12).
People can be very passionate about their work in these areas, and t=
hey
have perhaps unending avenues for challenge over time. The impetus for developing vital
engagement is often a mentor, a teacher, or other role model’s engage=
ment
and/or an individual’s personal experience of flow in a domain. Nakam=
ura
writes, “All such relationships transform both the object and the
individual. For the individua=
l,
valued aspects of the self find expression and realization in the relations=
hip
to the object. In addition, v=
ital
engagement contributes to a person’s overall well-being. Happiness and =
a sense
that life has meaning are attained not by directly pursuing them but as the
by-products of being vitally engaged with the world” (p. 16).<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This is the ki=
nd of
relationship I would expect musicians to have with their work. Most of us learn our trade from
committed mentors, and in order to pursue music to the level at which one c=
an
be a professional, we must have had experiences early in life that led us to
choose such a career. Is there
something disengaging about the
careers of orchestra musicians as Hackman and Schuller found? In what ways does the job of orche=
stra
musician not meet these criteria?
A second perspective comes from “Self
Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social
Development, and Well-Being” (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In order to promote high internal
motivation, these authors identify three conditions: “the needs for <=
span
class=3DGramE>competence, … relatedness, … and autonomy&=
#8221;
(p. 68). Competence refers to
recognition of the individual’s skills. Relatedness is, in my view, along =
the
same lines as felt significance or meaning in the Nakamura article. The third condition of autonomy is
something that is quite rare in the symphony orchestra, as it refers to the
feeling that one can act creatively and somewhat independently. Ryan and Deci comment, “Perh=
aps no
single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as
intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challen=
ges,
to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learnR=
21;
(p.70). According to their
framework, the forces that regulate intrinsic motivation are “interes=
t,
enjoyment, [and] inherent satisfaction” (p. 72). On the other end of the spectrum is
external motivation these authors characterize by the qualities of
“compliance, [and] external rewards and punishments” (p. 72).
Schuller, at the end of his article, discuss=
es an
exemplary example. He mention=
s the
music directorship of Maurice Abravanel with the Utah Symphony as
“superb” (1986, p. 193).
Schuller says, “Abravanel developed the Utah Symphony into not
only a first-rate orchestra, but one with exceptionally high morale and a v=
ery
positive attitude and work ethic.”&n=
bsp;
Considering the picture of the field I wa=
s finding
in the literature, this was a point of great interest! Schuller mentions several areas wh=
ere
this orchestra was in better shape than most: they performed at a very high
level, had carefully selected repertoire, and were especially conscious of =
the role
of the orchestra within the community.&nbs=
p;
Abravanel had committed himself to the role of “educator”
(p. 193). What is the possibi=
lity
that through education and community involvement performers could enrich th=
eir
own environment?
I am
interested specifically in the symphony orchestra players. Theoretically, I find that the work
environment for a music teacher matches more of the criteria for vital
engagement and well-being than that of a symphony orchestra musician. What would happen if an orchestra
musician had part of his career with the orchestra, and part as a
pedagogue? What differences in
career satisfaction will be reported between orc=
hestra
musicians who also teach versus those who perform only? METHODS SAMPLE: &=
nbsp; Given
the time limits of this study (a single semester), I
chose a group of musicians to whom I had immediate access. My target sample was a group of co=
re
musicians (full-time performers) from the Florida West Coast Symphony (FWCS=
),
the orchestra with which I have been performing for the past two years. Of the thirty-two core members sur=
veyed,
twenty-two responded. From th=
e pool
of responders, twelve volunteered for the interview. The final count of responses is
twenty-two completed surveys and ten completed interviews. I will not claim external validity=
for
this very small, very specific study.
For generalizing within the orchestra, statistically I can be 95%
confident that the margin of error is around 12% given the size of the popu=
lation
and the sample. MEASURES: &=
nbsp; Richard
Hackman and Erin Lehman, co-authors of the Life
and Work in Symphony Orchestras (Allmendinger, Hackman, and Lehman, 199=
6)
study, graciously provided copies of their instruments and analysis (Hackman
and Allmendinger, 1990). From=
that,
I excerpted part of the written survey regarding motivation and
satisfaction. With a few edit=
s and
additions aimed at acquiring data about motivations for teaching and the
musicians’ satisfaction with =
career
instead of orchestra job, the s=
urvey
I used was based on their model. There were questions at the beginn=
ing
regarding the musician’s career-related activities (performing in oth=
er
venues, teaching instrumental lessons, and teaching music classes) and the
amount of time they had performed as a full-time orchestra musician. All other responses were on a seven
point Likert scale. (See Appendix B.) &=
nbsp; For
the interview, I closely examined the protocol for the Good Work study (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, and Damon, 2001).
DESIGN:
&=
nbsp; There
are many threats to validity. First and foremost is the relationship of the size of =
the
population and the sample to the scope of the research question. Though the research question addre=
sses a
large generality, I studied only a group within a single orchestra. Even within the orchestra, the val=
idity
is limited and applies specifically to the core musicians.
Within the community of the orchestra,
musicians’ contracts are negotiated every =
three
years. Th=
is is a
negotiation year, which means that everyone in the organization is thinking=
and
talking about the areas they would like to see improvement. In addition to this issue, the mus=
icians
in the orchestra have been working towards unionization. The initial vote of intent was in =
the
spring of 2002, but the final vote was on December 4, 2002 after a long dia=
log
within the organization. My s=
urvey
was distributed and collected between services on November 21-22, 2002, and=
I
conducted all the interviews after the unionization. I decided to go ahead with the sur=
vey
because of time, interest, availability, and the fact that the negotiations=
or
union decision could push the responses in either direction. There was no certainty that the
responses I received would be either more positive or more negative. Reported job satisfaction could in=
crease
based on hopefulness or decrease because more attention was
placed on areas of dissatisfaction.=
In the interviews, I asked directly about the effects of the negotia=
tion
and unionization. The majorit=
y of
respondents (7/10) answered that their surveys were not
influenced at all, and the others said that the influence was
small. Those who claimed infl=
uence
mentioned that they felt they were more articulate about the issues than th=
ey
might be at another time, but that the overall tone of their answers was fr=
om
the entirety of their experience with orchestras in general. I will return to this issue in
discussing the results.
&=
nbsp; Because
I have been a member of the orchestra for two years, people treated me as a
colleague in the interviews, even though some had joined the organization s=
ince
my absence. This could mean t=
hey
gave me different information or a different kind of response than an unkno=
wn
interviewer. I also found a
tendency for the respondents to assume that I knew more than I did about the
way they were answering my questions, or that I would necessarily share the=
ir
opinions. I did ask for
clarification on ambiguous points, but I think the possibility of an unusual
response to this researcher is worth mentioning.
As this is my first attempt at an independent
research study of this kind, I ask the reader to keep in mind a few caveats
particular to a novice. There=
are
certain technical errors a more seasoned researcher might not make. First, I made an incorrect assumpt=
ion in
the initial concept for the study—that there were=
many
members of the FWCS who did not teach. Among those musicians in the orche=
stra
with whom I regularly associate on a personal basis, several individuals do=
not
currently teach. I did not pe=
rform
a pilot study before the written questionnaire to see if this was the rule =
for
the entire sample. Perhaps th=
is
study could be considered as a pilot for one more
suited to ascertain the type of information I initially sought. Second, I did not have any backgro=
und in
statistics or research prior to this study. Concurrent with this process, I ha=
ve
been studying basic research methods.
My data analysis knowledge is limited, and therefore certainly not
exhaustive even for this set of information. Third, due to the short overall ti=
me for
the study and the kinds of learning I had to do in order to complete it, I =
do
not feel that I possess all the contextual information regarding this
organization to establish causal links.&nb=
sp;
I postulate potential cause or effect relationships with great cauti=
on,
hoping to provide directions to seek more information regarding any
possibilities. Fourth, by cho=
osing
a sample of my colleagues, I am in a position where neutrality is not my st=
rongest
asset. To the best of my abil=
ity, I
attempt to present a fair picture of my findings, and hope that they will be
interesting and useful to the musicians, management, and board of the FWCS.=
I am grateful for the efforts of m=
any
members of the organization on my behalf, and for the opportunity to take a
year’s leave of absence in order to benefit the organization and myse=
lf.
PROCEDURES:
&= nbsp; I could not disclose the deeper intent to compare teaching to non-teaching musicians to the participants in my study because of the possibility of undue influence.&nbs= p; To protect the authenticity of the results, I gave them a very gener= al view of the goals of this study. To everyone outside the Harvard community I explained the research as a simple career satisfaction survey. <= o:p>
&=
nbsp; I
sent a copy of the survey to the personnel manager of the FWCS to review be=
fore
it was distributed, in part for feedback and in =
part
to ensure that I had permission to go ahead with the project at an orchestra
service.
The surveys were distrib=
uted to
the members of the core orchestra at a rehearsal and collected within the n=
ext
two days’ services.
Because I could not be there in person and because I thought I would
obtain the greatest possible number of responses, a colleague in the orches=
tra
distributed and gathered the surveys.
The cover letter explained that all responses were confidential and =
any
personally identifying information would not be used. On the last page of the survey, the
respondents were asked to provide their name and=
telephone
number if they would be willing to participate in an interview. This page was
collected and kept separate from the survey responses.
After the surveys were c=
ollected,
I received a query from the management as to the nature of the information =
I sought. There was some fear that my positi=
on was
somehow anti-management. Give=
n the
circumstances of the unionization debate, I felt it necessary to clarify to=
the
management the true intent of the study, though I am certain that this had =
no
effect on the musicians’ responses to the subsequent interviews. Where it did affect the outcome wa=
s in
my respect of their wishes not to pursue the matter further with musicians =
who
might have been disturbed by the initial survey. I did not attempt to contact non-r=
esponders
or follow up with any musicians who did not volunteer for the interviews.
The survey information was already in numeric
form. I used the SAS program =
to
analyze the data using means, correlations, scatter plots, t-tests and
significance intervals for specific questions and for groupings also used in
the Life and Work study
(Allmendinger, Hackman, and Lehman, 1996).
After a significant amount of data analysis,=
I
finalized a questionnaire for the interview process. I scheduled and conducted intervie=
ws via
telephone using a cassette recorder and taking notes. Each interview lasted between thir=
ty
minutes and two hours. I repl=
ayed
and analyzed the interviews to verify my interpretation of the responses.
RESULTS
&=
nbsp; 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 t=
he
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 sampl=
e as
a whole, making some comparisons with the Allmendinger, Hackman, and Lehman
findings from 1991.
&=
nbsp; 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 peo=
ple
responded in agreement (between agree slightly to agree strongly). To the statement, “If I teac=
h, it
is mostly because I enjoy it,” there were also eleven people in
agreement. The most significa=
ntly
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. Al=
most certainly the wording and placement of the questions a=
dded
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 j=
ust
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 cou=
ld
have on their performance in the orchestra, but that they were vigilant on
behalf of their artistic integrity. &=
nbsp;
Furthermore, all ten remarked that not only did they learn from
teaching, but that what they learned improved th=
eir
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.
&=
nbsp; The
statements that elicited the most positive agreement on the survey were sim=
ilar
to those Hackman mentioned. F=
or the
statement, “I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do t=
his
job well,” the cumulative response was 6.3 out of seven and the stand=
ard
deviation (variety of responses) was lower than any other item (sd=3D0.57).=
There was a mean of 6.1 in respons=
e to
the statement, “My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job
well,” (sd=3D1.1). These were the=
only
two single statements that achieved a mean score within one point of=
the
end of the scale. They demons=
trate
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 job̶=
1;
(3/10). Included in the categ=
ory of
artistic pursuits are things like phrasing every note, the eternal challeng=
e to
be more perfect, and “gelling” with a
section. These goals certainl=
y 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 rus=
h or
excitement they feel in a performance.&nbs=
p;
This satisfies the condition of relatedness in that the individual w=
ho
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 satisfacti=
on at
1.9 was, “The amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive,” (
Durin=
g the
interviews, I learned many things that inform how one should read the resul=
ts
regarding the musicians’ attitudes towards the management. Because of my absence, I was not a=
ware
of these events as they were happening.&nb=
sp;
I will attempt to provide a short but reasonable account of the clim=
ate
of the orchestra during the time surrounding the survey based on letters fr=
om
the Executive Director to the musicians, the letter from the Musicians̵=
7;
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 sou=
rces
and amounts of information, but feel it is imperative to provide the pictur=
e 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 decl=
ined
voluntary recognition of the union on the grounds that<=
/span>
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 exp=
ressing
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, me=
mbers
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 hav=
e not,
to this point in time, accessed. It
was in that climate that the survey was taken.
&=
nbsp; In
the interviews, all conducted after the union vote, I still heard repeatedl=
y 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 t=
heir
happiness in their career. An=
other
issue addressed by nine volunteers was the issue of communication between t=
he
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 kno=
w that
the administration, the board, and the musicians were all working for the s=
ame
ultimate goals. That is remin=
iscent
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 orde=
r 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’ le=
vel
of commitment. Other topics t=
hat
received mention as “disengaging” were difficult work relations=
hips
(5/10), and the conductor (4/10).
One could see these areas as being unfulfilling parts of any job whe=
re
there is a hierarchy (coworkers and boss, so to speak).
&=
nbsp; 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.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 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 th=
e 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 perfo=
rmances
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 wi=
th
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 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 ex=
cept
teaching students. In fact, n=
o 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 m=
eet
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 th=
eir
life in music enough to stay.
This compares much as one might expect to th=
e 1991
survey results for the Life and Wor=
k
article. They grouped their r=
esults
into eight categories. For the
graphic comparison of the two data sets and standard deviations in these ei=
ght
groups, please see Appendix A.
There were four areas where the FWCS data were significantly differe=
nt
from the larger pool:
|
CATEGORY |
1991 MEANS |
FWCS MEANS |
Difference |
|
Satisfaction with Compens=
ation |
3.867 |
2.107 |
1.760 |
|
Job Involvement |
4.700 |
3.136 |
1.564 |
|
General Satisfaction |
5.609 |
4.235 |
1.374 |
|
Satisfaction with Managem=
ent |
4.285 |
2.937 |
1.348 |
(Significance calculated us=
ing
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 i=
s 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.&=
nbsp;
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 wer=
e not
statistically significantly different are satisfaction with job security,
satisfaction with work relationships, satisfaction with growth opportunitie=
s,
and internal work motivation.
&=
nbsp; Within
the FWCS data, there are some interesting correlations among the
groupings. The highest of the=
se is
between satisfaction with growth opportunities and satisfaction with
compensation (r=3D0.621, prob.=3D0.003). This means that the people respond=
ed
similarly to both categories. There
was an inverse relationship between satisfaction with work relationships and
satisfaction with growth opportunities (r=3D-0.47, prob=
.=3D0.036). The mean for the category of work
relationships was higher than that for growth opportunities, so perhaps tha=
t is
the link. Lastly, there was o=
nly
one correlation with time in the orchestra, and that was general satisfacti=
on
(r=3D0.441, prob.=3D0.04). 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 “soloistR=
21;
was never spoken in this set of interviews. Based on the discussions I had wit=
h this
group and their descriptions of what they found most engaging about their w=
ork,
I believe that is because they were genuinely aspiring to the career of an
orchestra musician. Hackman a=
lso
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 th=
ey
could be happier individuals in this orchestra.
CONCLUSIONS
&=
nbsp; Clearly,
I can make no claims that these data have any support for my original
hypothesis of more career satisfaction among performer-pedagogues. Even though this is a sample of te=
aching
musicians, their overall job satisfaction reported at the time of the survey
was quite a bit lower than the mean from previous research, in some part
accounted for by the context surrounding the survey. However, this study has raised a
different, unexpected set of questions.
Given the enormous role that pedagogy plays =
in the
scope of these musicians’ careers, my attention turns to the total
absence (seven people reported none) or lack of training they had in this
area. Of the interview volunt=
eers,
all of them had pursued graduate study in performance, and all but one had
received a master’s degree.
None of them had more than a single one-year class of pedagogy train=
ing,
and of those who did, they did not remember, value, or otherwise emphasize =
how
that training had affected their teaching.=
&=
nbsp; What
they did mention in nearly every case was the role their teachers and mento=
rs
played in their musical development.
Several of the people I interviewed grew up in environments where mu=
sic
was distinctly present, and all of them spoke of=
how
their primary teachers had affected their musical growth in positive or
negative ways.
&=
nbsp; When
one takes into consideration the recommendations they made for training you=
ng
people who desire to become orchestra musicians, the unanimous response was=
the
importance of the teacher with whom that student studies and the
student’s commitment to this domain.=
Eight of them in some way stressed the role that competition plays in
acquiring a job, and that it is very important for young people to have a f=
air
idea of how hard it will be to earn a living as a musician. Though all of them have made ends =
meet
by teaching, in most cases for several years, none of them specifically cit=
ed
pedagogy training in their recommendations for young people training for
careers as orchestra musicians. Is
the teach-the-way-you-were-taught method sufficient? As a point of departure, is there
nothing for musicians to learn from current research in lifespan developmen=
t,
the uses of technology for education, or theories of cognition that warrant
attention in the domain of music training?=
Is the competition so great that the thought of an even higher level=
of
achievement too frightening? =
Would
these pursuits be only a distraction to the artistic commitment musicians
make? Consider the unanimous
response to the question regarding whether what they learned from teaching
affected their own performance. Not
only did it affect their performance, but each p=
erson
mentioned specific ways in which their teaching improved their playing. These questions are real and I thi=
nk
warrant at least some attention.
Further investigation into the avenues of
effective teacher training and its presence or absence at the university le=
vel
is a safe recommendation. Is =
this
group commensurate with those in other locations and levels of orchestras?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Are the ten graduate level music
programs represented by this sample offering better opportunities or more
emphasis on pedagogy now than when these alumni were students? Is there a need for change within =
the
community of Western classical music?
As seems to be the case in my limited experi=
ence
with research, this study leaves me with many more questions than I have
answered. The possibility also
exists that this sample is much too limited to represent any trend in the
musical domain, but the role of pedagogy in the life of a performing musici=
an
may be yet more prevalent than I had even dreamed.
Thank you to Erin Lehman and Richard Hackman=
for
providing materials from their study of symphony orchestras.
Bibliography
Allmendinger,=
J., R.
Hackman, and E. Lehman.
(1996) Life and Work in Symphony Orchestras. The
Musical Quarterly, Summer, 194-219.
Hackman, R. (1991). Properties of the Musician Survey.=
Unpublished wo=
rking
document.
Hackman, R., and Allmendinger, J.
(1990) Symphony Musician Survey. Unpublished survey instrument.
Judy, P. (1996) Life and Work in
Symphony Orchestras: An Interview with J. Richard Hackman. Harmony Magazine, April, 1-8.
Lehman, E. (1995) Symphony Orches=
tra
Organizations: Development of the Literature Since
1960. In Harmony
Magazine, October, 37-54.
Nakamura, J. (2001) The Nature of=
Vital
Engagement in Adulthood In Michaelson, M. and J. Nakamura (Eds.), New Directions f=
or
Child and Adolescent Development 93. (pp. 5-18).
Ryan, R. and =
E. Deci. (2000)
Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Soc=
ial
Development, and Well-Being.”=
American Psychologist, Janua=
ry, 68-78.
Schuller, G. (1986) The
State of
APPENDIX A
Charts and Ta=
bles
|
Mean |
SD |
Highest Score |
|
6.3 |
0.57 |
I feel a great =
sense of
personal satisfaction when I do this job well. |
|
6.1 |
1.1 |
My opinion of m=
yself
goes up when I do this job well. |
|
5.8 |
0.87 |
I feel bad and =
unhappy
when I discover that I have performed less well than I should have on this
job. |
|
5.4 |
1.1 |
The people I ta=
lk to
and work with on the job. |
|
5.4 |
1.2 |
I am generally
satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. |
|
Mean |
SD |
Lowest Score |
|
1.9 |
1.2 |
The amount of p=
ay and
fringe benefits I receive. |
|
2.0 |
0.58 |
My own feelings
generally are not affected much one way or the=
other
by how well I perform this job. |
|
2.3 |
1.5 |
The degree to w=
hich I am fairly paid for what I contribute to this orchest=
ra. |
|
2.6 |
1.1 |
The amount of s=
upport
and guidance I receive from orchestra management. |
|
2.9 |
1.0 |
The overall qua=
lity of
the management I receive in my work. |
|
Mean |
SD |
Highest Standard Deviation |
|
4.0 |
1.9 |
If I teach, it =
is
mostly because I need the money. |
|
3.3 |
1.7 |
I frequently th=
ink of
quitting this job. |
|
4.3 |
1.6 |
The amount of p=
ersonal
growth and development I get in doing this job. |
|
3.3 |
1.6 |
The degree of r=
espect
and fair treatment I receive from management. |
|
4.3 |
1.6 |
The
amount of challenge in my job. |
|
4.6 |
1.6 |
The amount of j=
ob
security I have. |
|
Mean |
SD |
Lowest Standard Deviation |
|
6.3 |
0.57 |
I feel a great =
sense of
personal satisfaction when I do this job well. |
|
2.0 |
0.58 |
My own feelings
generally are not affected much one way or the=
other
by how well I perform this job. |
|
5.8 |
0.87 |
I feel bad and =
unhappy
when I discover that I have performed less well than I should have on this
job. |
|
5.0 |
0.95 |
The feeling of
worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. |
|
2.9 |
1.0 |
The overall qua=
lity of
the management I receive in my work. |
|
2.6 |
1.1 |
The amount of s=
upport
and guidance I receive from orchestra management. |
Survey analysis in SAS
Items:
1.
Survey catalog number (1- 22)
career includes (1 for yes, 0 for no)
2. performing with this orchestra (22 yes)
3. performing with other ensembles/gigs (22 yes)
4. teaching lessons on my instrument (19 yes, 3 no)
5. teaching other music classes (5 yes, 17 no)
6. other (22 no)
7. time as a
full-time orchestra musician (0.1-15 years, mean is 6.1 years)
For
the next set: 1=3D strongly disagree to 7=3D str=
ongly
agree
Number. Mean (Standard Deviation)
|
8.
6.1 (1.1) |
My
opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well. |
|
9.
4.0 (1.5) |
Generally speaking, I am very satisfied w=
ith
this job. |
|
10.
5.8 (0.87) |
I
feel bad and unhappy when I discover that I have performed less well than=
I
should have on this job. |
|
11.
3.3 (1.7) |
I
frequently think of quitting this job. |
|
12.
2.0 (0.58) |
My
own feelings generally are not affected much one way<=
/span>
or the other by how well I perform this job. |
|
13.
5.4 (1.2) |
I
am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. |
|
14.
6.3 (0.57) |
I
feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well. |
|
15.
3.1 (1.4) |
I
live, eat, and breathe my job. |
|
16.
4.0 (1.9) |
If
I teach, it is mostly because I need the money. |
|
17.
4.5 (1.4) |
If
I teach, it is mostly because I enjoy it. |
For
the next set: 1=3D extremely dissatisfied to 7=3D
extremely satisfied
|
18.
5.4 (1.1) |
The
people I talk to and work with on the job. |
|
19.
5.0 (0.95) |
The
feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. |
|
20.
2.6 (1.1) |
The
amount of support and guidance I receive from orchestra management. |
|
21.
4.4 (1.5) |
How
secure things look for me in the future of this orchestra. |
|
22.
4.3 (1.6) |
The amount of challenge in my job. |
|
23.
4.5 (1.2) |
The chance to help other people while at work.=
|
|
24.
1.9 (1.2) |
The
amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive. |
|
25.
3.7 (1.4) |
The
amount of independent thought and action I can exercise in my work. |
|
26.
3.3 (1.6) |
The
degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from management. |
|
27.
5.1 (1.2) |
The
chance to get to know other people while on the job. |
|
28.
2.3 (1.5) |
The
degree to which I am fairly paid for what I
contribute to this orchestra. |
|
29.
4.4 (1.4) |
The amount which I am paid for teaching, if I do.<= o:p> |
|
30.
4.6 (1.6) |
The
amount of job security I have. |
|
31.
2.9 (1.0) |
The
overall quality of the management I receive in my work. |
|
32.
4.3 (1.6) |
The
amount of personal growth and development I get in doing this job. |
CATEGORY GROU=
PINGS:
Measures fro=
m 1991
Musician Survey: (FWCS results in parenthesis)
|
Measure |
# q |
# resp |
Mean |
SD |
|
Internal Work
Motivation (8, 10, 14) |
3 |
921 |
6.210 (6.06) |
0.786 |
|
General Satis=
faction
(9, 11, 13) |
3 |
922 |
5.609 (4.23) |
1.214 |
|
Job involveme=
nt (15) |
1 |
916 |
4.700 (3.1) |
2.043 |
|
Satisfaction =
with:
compensation (24, 28) |
2 |
908 |
3.867 (2.1) |
1.746 |
|
Job Security (=
21,
30) |
2 |
907 |
4.824 (4.5) |
1.478 |
|
Management (20=
, 26,
31) |
3 |
909 |
4.285 (2.9) |
1.478 |
|
Work Relations=
hips
(18, 23, 27) |
3 |
911 |
4.927 (5.0) |
0.978 |
|
Growth Opportu=
nities
(19, 22, 25, 32) |
4 |
910 |
4.835 (4.3) |
1.172 |
JT teaching:
Internal motiva=
tion
(17)
External Motiva=
tion
(16, 29)
Grouping Correlations (FWCS Data Only):
|
Correlations |
value |
probability |
|
Growth Opportunities and Job Involvement |
0.438 |
0.047 |
|
Growth Opportunities and Compensation |
0.621 |
0.003 |
|
Growth Opportunities and Work Relationships |
-0.47 |
0.036 |
|
Job Security and Teaching (Internal motivatio=
n) |
0.52 |
0.016 |
|
Job Security and Teaching (External motivatio=
n) |
0.594 |
0.006 |
|
General Satisfaction and Time in the orchestr=
a |
0.441 |
0.04 |
|
Teaching (Internal motivation) and Teaching
(External motivation) |
-0.82 |
0.001 |
![](3D"PPSComplete_files/image006.gif")
=
APPENDIX B
Sample Survey and Analysis Overvie=
w
Quick
Survey:
Any personally identifying information will be comp= letely confidential between the respondent and the researcher.
Please
mark the statements that apply to you:
My
career includes:
a.
performing with this orchestra
b.
performing with other ensembles/gigs
c.
teaching lessons on my instrument
d.
teaching other music classes
e.
other: _______________________________________________________
I
have been a full-time orchestra musician for:
____________________months
or _______________________years &s=
hy;
&=
nbsp; Each
of the following statements is something that a person might say about his =
or
her job. Please indicate your=
own
feelings by writing the corresponding number to how much you agree with eac=
h of
the statements. This section =
is
about how you personally feel about your CAREER (job as a musician in gener=
al).
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Disagree Slightly |
Neutral |
Agree Slightly |
Agree |
Agree Strongly |
|
|
My
opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well. |
|
|
Generally speaking, I am very satisfied w=
ith
this job. |
|
|
I
feel bad and unhappy when I discover that I have performed less well than=
I should
have on this job. |
|
|
I
frequently think of quitting this job. |
|
|
My
own feelings generally are not affected much one way<=
/span>
or the other by how well I perform this job. |
|
|
I
am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. |
|
|
I
feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well. |
|
|
I
live, eat, and breathe my job. |
|
|
If
I teach, it is mostly because I need the money. |
|
|
If
I teach, it is mostly because I enjoy it. |
Now
please indicate how satisfied you are with each aspect of your job listed <=
span
class=3DGramE>below. O=
nce
again, please write the appropriate number:
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
Extremely Dissatisfi=
ed |
Dissatisfied |
Slightly Dissatisfie=
d |
Neutral |
Slightly Satisfied |
Satisfied |
Extremely Satisfied<= o:p> |
|
|
The
people I talk to and work with on the job. |
|
|
The
feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. |
|
|
The
amount of support and guidance I receive from orchestra management. |
|
|
How
secure things look for me in the future of this orchestra. |
|
|
The amount of challenge in my job. |
|
|
The chance to help other people while at work.=
|
|
|
The
amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive. |
|
|
The
amount of independent thought and action I can exercise in my work. |
|
|
The
degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from management. |
|
|
The
chance to get to know other people while on the job. |
|
|
The
degree to which I am fairly paid for what I
contribute to this orchestra. |
|
|
The
degree to which I am fairly paid for teaching,=
if I
do. |
|
|
The
amount of job security I have. |
|
|
The
overall quality of the management I receive in my work. |
|
|
The
amount of personal growth and development I get in doing this job. |
–= ;PAGE BREAK—
Would you agree to participate in a more in-depth telephone interview in the next few weeks?
Contact
information:
Name:
_________________________________________________
Phone:_________________________
Note:
this will be kept separate from the survey.
Survey analysis in SAS
Items:
1.
Survey catalog number (1- 22)
career includes (1 for yes, 0 for no)
2. performing with this orchestra (22 yes)
3. performing with other ensembles/gigs (22 yes)
4. teaching lessons on my instrument (19 yes, 3 no)
5. teaching other music classes (5 yes, 17 no)
6. other (22 no)
7. time as a
full-time orchestra musician (0.1-15 years, mean is 6.1 years)
For
the next set: 1=3D strongly disagree to 7=3D str=
ongly
agree
Number. Mean (Standard Deviation)
|
8.
6.1 (1.1) |
My
opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well. |
|
9.
4.0 (1.5) |
Generally speaking, I am very satisfied w=
ith
this job. |
|
10.
5.8 (0.87) |
I
feel bad and unhappy when I discover that I have performed less well than=
I
should have on this job. |
|
11.
3.3 (1.7) |
I
frequently think of quitting this job. |
|
12.
2.0 (0.58) |
My
own feelings generally are not affected much one way<=
/span>
or the other by how well I perform this job. |
|
13.
5.4 (1.2) |
I
am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. |
|
14.
6.3 (0.57) |
I
feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well. |
|
15.
3.1 (1.4) |
I
live, eat, and breathe my job. |
|
16.
4.0 (1.9) |
If
I teach, it is mostly because I need the money. |
|
17.
4.5 (1.4) |
If
I teach, it is mostly because I enjoy it. |
For
the next set: 1=3D extremely dissatisfied to 7=3D
extremely satisfied
|
18.
5.4 (1.1) |
The
people I talk to and work with on the job. |
|
19.
5.0 (0.95) |
The
feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job. |
|
20.
2.6 (1.1) |
The
amount of support and guidance I receive from orchestra management. |
|
21.
4.4 (1.5) |
How
secure things look for me in the future of this orchestra. |
|
22.
4.3 (1.6) |
The amount of challenge in my job. |
|
23.
4.5 (1.2) |
The chance to help other people while at work.=
|
|
24.
1.9 (1.2) |
The
amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive. |
|
25.
3.7 (1.4) |
The
amount of independent thought and action I can exercise in my work. |
|
26.
3.3 (1.6) |
The
degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from management. |
|
27.
5.1 (1.2) |
The
chance to get to know other people while on the job. |
|
28.
2.3 (1.5) |
The
degree to which I am fairly paid for what I
contribute to this orchestra. |
|
29.
4.4 (1.4) |
The amount which I am paid for teaching, if I do.<= o:p> |
|
30.
4.6 (1.6) |
The
amount of job security I have. |
|
31.
2.9 (1.0) |
The
overall quality of the management I receive in my work. |
|
32.
4.3 (1.6) |
The
amount of personal growth and development I get in doing this job. |
APPENDIX C
Interview Pro=
tocol
and Code
Interview Protocol:
1. When did you decide=
to
become an orchestra musician?
=
Expectations? Reasons?
(Was
it your intended goal? A backup? )
Have
you found it fulfilling so far?
In
what ways is your work engaging?
Disengaging?
2. Did the current pre=
paration
for contract negotiations influence your answers to the survey in any way? =
=
Unionization?
=
Affect on others?
3. What role does teac=
hing
play in the greater scope of your career? (if no=
ne,
skip to #7)
4. What do you see as =
your primary
motivations for teaching?
5. Do you learn anythi=
ng from
teaching your instrument?
Does
any part of it apply to your own performance?
6. Does your teaching =
have any
effect on your performance in the orchestra?
Improvements?
Distractions?
7. Many people seem to=
feel
that teachers are failed performers.
Do you feel that there is a stigma
against teaching musicians?
What
effects does that have on you?
8. Where and how were you trained for your career?
=
In a nutshell, from the beginning.
=
Did
you have any pedagogy training?
9. Do you feel that yo=
ur
training was appropriate to the activities in your career?
What
changes would you make?
What
parts were most effective?
10. Some people seem t=
o report
that creativity is not necessary for the career of the orchestra musician.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
What
do you think?
Does
creativity play a greater role in your activities as a performer or as a
teacher?
Do
you consider yourself to be an artist?
11. How would you advi=
se a
young person who is thinking about a career in an orchestra?
&nb=
sp; =
What
training should they have?
Would you try to encourage them or not?
12. What direction do =
you see
for the future of symphony orchestras?
13. Are orchestra memb=
ers
generally satisfied with their careers?&nb=
sp;
What
changes would make them happier?
Interview Coding
|
Interview Questions |
SUMS/ Means |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
decision age |
15.55555556 |
15 |
12 |
16 |
16 |
14 |
|
18 |
20 |
14 |
15 |
|
high school |
6 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
earlier |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
later |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
fulfilling |
8.4 |
20% |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
20% |
1 |
|
engaging |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
artistic concerns |
9 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
people |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
bigger job |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
challenge |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
repertoire |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
disengaging |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
management |
7 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
perform at
unsat. Level |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
=
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
people |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
repertoire |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
conductor |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Negotiation effect |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
affect
others? |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
teaching pursued |
6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
want less |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
for $ |
9 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
would anyway |
8 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
learn from teaching |
10 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
apply to perf |
10 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
pos orch affect |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
neg orch affect |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
failed=
performers? |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
stigma? |
8 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
stigma
affects you? |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
undergrad BM |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
MM |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
no Pedagogy training |
7 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
<=3D 1 yr ped |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
>1 yr ped |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
training
appropriate? |
8 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
creativity necessary in orch |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
cr in perform |
8 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
cr in teach |
10 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
both |
9 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
young people encourage |
w/caveat |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
love |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
skill |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
competition |
8 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
direction stays |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
future better |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
future worse |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
gen=
sat? |
ambiguous |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
half |
half |
0 |
0 |
|
changes in FWCS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more pay |
10 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
benefits |
6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
communication w/ mgt |
9 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
outreach |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |