ABOUT CSO

YMPHONY ORCHESTRA) is one of the oldest symphony orchestras in the world which had managed to exist without any break. The orchestra music had entered to Turkey in the term of 2. Mahmut. After this step, Giuseppe Denizetti who was invited by the 2.Mahmut from the Austria palace came to the Istanbul and started to manage the orchestra. Until the term of Sultan Vahidettin, the name of the orchestra was " M?z?kai Humayun" and it has serviced only to the palace of the Ottoman Empire.

After the foundation of Turkish republic, the orchestra was transported to the Ankara which is the capital city of Turkey from Istanbul in 1924. With the order of Ataturk the founder of the Turkish republic CSO was organised as an educational organisation which aims to increase the culture and the art level of the public. By considering the effect of the art in the improvement of the culture level of the public, " Musaki Muallim Mektebi" which was a kind of musician school was founded in order to create musicians for the orchestra. " Musaki Muallim Mektebi" was the source of the conservatoire which was founded in 1936 in Ankara. CSO was the main supporter of the this conservatoire by providing its teachers. " Musaki Muallim Mektebi" is the main source for the musician needs of the orchestras such as Istanbul and Izmir Government Symphony Orchestras.

A.Adnan Soygun started to manage the orchestra(CSO) in 1934. In 1935, with the offer of Paul Hindemith who had the responsibility of preparing the programmes of the educational music foundations in Turkey the famous Coermaza Orchestra conductor Dr. Ernst Praetrorius was promoted to the management of the CSO as the conductor. Proetorius who was an important orchestra pedagogue increased the level of CSO to the international standards in terms of technical aspects.
 
 

After the death of the Praetorius, the CSO was managed by famous composers such as Ferid alnar, G.E. Lessing. Especially G.E Lessing prepared the architecture of some of the melodies of Turkish composers and he managed these melodies in the concerts all over the world. After the year 1957 in which the law ranked 6940 was legislated for the CSO, the orchestra organized concerts in the abroad so that CSO was well-known in the abroad. Gurer Aykal who entered to orchestra in 1974 as the conductor assistant was promoted to the conductor position of the CSO in 1988.

After the year 1957 (the foundation law was legislated), CSO organised radio-television, youth, school and child concerts more than 1000 in Ankara. In addition to this, more than 400 concerts was organised in every part of the country from Edirne to Hakkari. In addition to this, some of the countries in which concerts was organised are Italy, France, Swedish, Persia, Iraq, South Korea, Japan and USA. With these concerts in the abroad, the CSO contributed to the advertisement of the existence of modern Turkish symphony orchestra to the world by the well critiques it has taken from the famous international cultural centres.
MANAGEMENT
 
 

Performance management system uses challenging and engaging simulations that enable managers and performers to learn a systematic approach for analysing, planning and managing human performance. Performance of CSO improves as teams create, meet and exceed interim and end goals. Both managers and performers benefit from:

• A consistent management process focused on achieving peak performance.

• Improved understanding and performance due to clear expectations

• A process for managing change and implementing new strategies.

• Improved coaching, goal setting and organisational alignment.

• Better use of precious organisational resources.

• Coaching and personal development programs.

As our objective in the project is to establish a scientific performance measurement at Cumhurbaskanligi Symphony Orchestra(CSO), firstly we imply on the need for a formal definition of symphony orchestra.
 
 

SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA

A symphony orchestra organisation is a group of musicians, staff employees, and working volunteers, assembled primarily to maintain an orchestra principally performing a symphonic repertoire.

Constituency of a Symphony Orchestra

The constituency of a symphony orchestra organisation consists of those individuals and institutions that provide sustained support to the organisation and assure its continued existence.

This constituency includes:

• a listening and observing audience. Some orchestras have an important but secondary constituency which listens to and, in some cases observes, the orchestra via electronic means. Most orchestras, however, depend on a foundation audience of concert-attending "customers" who reside in a base community.
• charitable contributors, many of whom are customers, acting individually and providing both annual and endowment funding.
• active volunteers who are usually both customers and contributors, but who also provide time and know-how in governance, fund-raising, direct service, and other necessary work.

However, as agent for the community, each constituent must ask whether the local symphony orchestra organisation is providing adequate "value" to the community.

Within most communities, overlapping and competing constituencies of a number of social, cultural, educational, and other not-for-profit organisations vie with each other. Volunteer service opportunities abound; the mail overflows with requests for charitable contributions and planned-giving support.

With all these choices, and with limits on time and money, constituents of not-for-profit organisations are comparing the output that various organisations deliver to the community against the input of resources they know or feel such organisations are consuming. Costs/inputs are fairly measurable. Benefits/outputs are more difficult to measure, being more qualitative, subjective, and judgmental. Even so, however imperfectly and unsentimentally, cost/benefit evaluations are being made.

Judgements are swift and simple if constituents perceive such obvious internal problems as poor artistry, staff turnover or questionable leadership. But even when enthusiasts describe their orchestra as "wonderful," thoughtful critics applaud its artistry, and the organisation’s budget is in balance, concerns still remain.

Throughout society, constituencies expect to be more deeply informed about the institutions they support. Constituents are less tolerant of perceived bureaucracy and inflexibility. They seek openness and a greater sense of dialogue about institutional direction. And they want greater accountability and more assurance regarding productive use of human and financial resources within these institutions.

Constituencies of symphony orchestra organisations want to increase the community value which their organisations are providing, and they want this value to grow over time.
 
 

Effectiveness of a Symphony Orchestra

A symphony orchestra organisation is believed to be effective if it:

• achieves, in all significant respects and on a sustained basis, the organisational performance expectations of an involved and well informed constituency; and,
• engages and challenges its musicians, staff, and working volunteers with opportunities for personal and professional growth. It is proposed that certain conditions particularly contribute to the effectiveness of a symphony orchestra organisation.

_A clearly stated mission and goals with supporting objectives and main strategies which are:

The Interactions Between The Members of The Orchestra

For many orchestra organisations, particularly those having significant seasons, if not involving year-round orchestra employment, orchestra members typically have longer average employment than the staff. Quite often, some orchestra players are the oldest employees with the longest employment in an orchestral organisation, and these people possess great institutional memory. Sustained, longer-term, committed loyalty by musicians is partly explained by the tenure system, but it also reflects the fact that many symphony musicians, particularly when they marry and form families, put down roots and look to the symphony organisation for their lifetime economic and musical sustenance.

In interviews with orchestra members in many symphony organisations, the organisational sentiment and loyalty which musicians feel is outstanding, but this commitment tends to be expressed as a "very strong bond and commitment to the orchestra and my fellow players" more than as "a very strong positive feeling about my employer and the symphony institution as a whole." We have written at length about the unique intellectual and physical characteristics of the orchestral workplace, where many forces tend to isolate the orchestra from the balance of the organisation.

This natural workplace separation is often heightened by a collective bargaining agreement, which nominally sets off the economic interests of the orchestra employees from other employees, and from the interests of key volunteers who provide valuable service without compensation.

The orchestra is a distinctly bounded and bonded group within most symphony organisations. Although very committed to unified musical performance, players individually and as a group often have relatively low-level involvement in the overall affairs and decision-making systems within their organisations, and relatively low-level workplace interaction with many non-orchestra participants, particularly board members. Of course, as we all recognise, the orchestra comprises the central human resources of a symphony organisation. In most organisations, an orchestra of 60 to 110 players constitutes a significant majority of the institution’s employees, and even a majority of total participants, if key volunteers are counted in total organisational size, as they should be. The compensation and benefits of the orchestra are the main cost center in an orchestra organisation’s budget, never mind the necessary adjunct costs of music direction, conducting, visiting artist services, and other concert production expenses.

The aural output and physical presence of an orchestra in concert are what audiences pay to hear, see, and experience together with others. Contributors support the existence and maintenance of an orchestra; staff and board groups are viewed as necessary support systems. And yet, we have a large group of typically and increasingly well-educated, loyal, and, in many cases, well-compensated employees who are only minimally involved in the overall direction and operations of the organisation of which they are a central part, and who tend to commit their loyalties and trust to each other more than to the institution as a whole, which institution, overall, permits and provides them the opportunity to pursue a livelihood and first love. What is all this about? Why is this the normal condition of affairs?

Let’s first examine what musicians quite often say about their lack of involvement in the overall affairs of their institutions.

_ As a musician, my job is to play my instrument, to prepare for and play rehearsals and concerts. I and my colleagues shouldn’t be expected to think about, never mind do, the job of someone else in this organisation.

_ My participation in organisational matters or activities other than instrument playing is not wanted by the management or the board.

_ To be blunt, our involvement as musicians in non-playing matters is obviously solicited as a token gesture. Our views are not taken seriously. It is waste of our time and energy. Such token involvement is patronising. It just adds to tension and distrust.

_ When we musicians become involved, we begin to be exposed to thinking and arguments as to why the organisation can’t do this and can’t do that. Why there are limits or constraints, and uncertainties and risks, as to what is reasonable for this organisation to achieve. If we get really involved, we become too close to management and the board, and to their thinking. Our thinking can become restricted. We lose our freedom of action. We lose our ability, will, and unity to force management and governance to do a better job, to set higher goals, to achieve greater results, to meet our needs.

_ The trade agreement provides for whatever involvement we musicians have agreed to. If something is not in the agreement, we are not supposed and should not be expected voluntarily to do any work or be of any assistance other than the services provided for in that agreement.

_ I and my colleagues are just not trained for or skilled in any functions taking place in this organisation other than orchestral performance.

_ Participating in organisational matters, beyond orchestra performance and preparation, takes time and energy. I have many other outside work and volunteer activities for my extra time and energy.

_ I find exposure to various organisational matters stressful. These matters interfere with my life and my instrumental performance.

_ My orchestra employment is only part time; it is difficult for me to become deeply interested in this institution’s overall affairs, since I cannot depend upon it for my livelihood.

Let’s review the reasons we’ve heard from managers and board members express for not involving musicians more broadly in the affairs of their institutions. We have also accumulated this collection on visits to the orchestral workplace.

_ It is the responsibility of the board and staff to govern and manage this organisation, to set its goals and direction, and to carry out its successful operation. It isn’t proper, fruitful, or fair to share those responsibilities with members of the orchestra.

_ Since the orchestra is unified, there is a conflict involving its members, particularly its leaders, beyond some point, especially when it comes to sharing financial and operational information. It will be used against us.

_ If we involve the orchestra in our overall affairs, with such involvement and sharing comes a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of this institution as a whole, and our players just can’t seem to be able to think in those terms.

_ Important functions around here, like marketing, development, and finance, require special knowledge. We would constantly have to stop and explain these things to musicians, and even then, it is unlikely that they would understand, and it would certainly slow down our whole operation.

_ If we involve musicians in our overall affairs and we share with them our plans our enthusiasm, optimism, and hopes it will just heighten their expectations.

_ Involving musicians in the overall affairs of this organisation would be like having children participate with parents in family decisions, and we all know that that is not a good idea.
 
 

Evaluation of These Attitudes

We found the above kinds of statements, and the attitudes and reasoning behind them, rather fascinating.

_ Many statements, by the apparently opposing parties, actually reflect a common point of view. In many instances, there is a tacit agreement "to uninvolve" and "to be uninvolved."

_ Many of these statements tend to stereotype or put down musicians, managers, and board members, or to imply the narrowness of their roles, and by indirection, the limited capabilities and interests of the persons filling those roles.

_ Finally, note how many of the statements frame organisational "involvement." It is implicit in most of the statements that governance and management are very involved with each other and jointly committed to the best interests of the institution in a very unified way (which view we believe is not sufficiently often the case in itself); this aggregate grouping has the right, duty, and choice to invite or not invite the orchestra’s involvement in the overall direction and affairs of the institution; and the orchestra has the right and privilege to accept or be passive about becoming so involved.
 
 

Pursuing Higher Involvement Organisations

With the large degree vocal opinion on the topic, it is quite natural that many people would ask whether it is worth all the energy and possible frustration to pursue a much more highly involved organisational environment, particularly incorporating substantially greater musician participation.

To this question, our immediate answer is: What is our alternative? Do we, who feel deeply and keenly about our orchestral organisations, want the climate to continue to be less than optimal forever? Do we want these kinds of embedded attitudes to persist and not be confronted? Or, do we want to work toward a more cohesive, effective, and enthusiastic workplace for all employees and working volunteers, and together better address the many external challenges and opportunities our organisations face in the 21st century?

Also, we would answer that almost every organisational behavioural scholar tells us that research indicates that increased involvement and participation

_ is desired by most people in any organisation,

_ often results in energised performance,

_ produces better solutions to problems,

_ helps people understand and agree on needed change,

_ enhances the acceptance of decisions,

_ increases participants’ commitment to their organisation, and

_ strengthens peoples’ attitudes about themselves and the world in which they live.

With these general results in mind, aren’t the opportunities of greater involvement worth pursuing in some depth, and with concerted energy?

Organisational research also indicates that employees working together in small groups quite often have very good insights and ideas as to how their tasks can be performed better, with more qualitative and quantitative output. And when employees are empowered to make decisions affecting their work processes, both productivity and work satisfaction often increase. Orchestra organisations have many opportunities for this kind of team task involvement and empowerment.

Let’s also examine a reality of the orchestral workplace. Most musicians are educated to be part of a great symphonic music. This is the life work they have chosen, and it is well documented that symphony musicians have very high levels of internal motivation. However, the other side of the coin is that the primary, fundamental work processes of an orchestra rehearsals and concerts involve relatively high levels of stress which take many forms. But a primary stress is the distress which results from an extremely low level of control over one’s work. Between the composer’s script and the conductor’s instructions, there are, for many orchestral musicians, few opportunities for personal input and choice. There is a good deal of necessary repetition, and routine. Compound this basic setting, too often, with the imposition of a conductor who does not have the respect of players, many of whom are long-term employees. Then, further compound these fundamental aspects of orchestral work with an overall organisational environment in which even those musicians who do have the interest, motivation, time, talent, and intelligence are not invited, encouraged, or permitted to contribute and become more broadly active and involved in their organisation’s direction and development. With these circumstances generic to an industry, one would expect to find a number of organisations which were not functioning close to their potential, and some organisations which were relatively dysfunctional.
 
 

Assumptions:

First, neither management nor musicians can afford to apply traditional union-management practices to symphony orchestra. Symphony orchestra is too fragile and too dependent on the good will of their communities to employ, adversarial bargaining approaches often used in the business world approaches that rely on the ultimate threat of a work stoppage. The price of a work stoppage is too great for the average orchestra. Work stoppages generate for institutions that depend on good will for their survival.

Second, we believe that we must change relations between board and musicians and, most importantly, that it is the board and the staff that must lead the way in that change. Many board members are experienced in reaching agreements and in compromising their objectives to achieve longer-term goals. Most musicians have been trained as artists who struggle to achieve perfection in their work, and few are experienced in the ways of the business world and its daily requirement of compromise and adjustment. In fact, on more than one occasion we have found ourselves in discussions with bright and knowledgeable musicians who firmly believed that to compromise on a particular issue would be inconsistent with their commitment to their profession.

Finally, boards of directors must regard the well-being of their symphony’s musicians as one of their primary objectives such that there are interests of their audiences and contributors. Musicians with the talent that we see in CSO have earned and deserve that commitment. If we value the music they play, we must also value those who play the music.
 
 

MAIN GROUPINGS

In for-profit organisations, there are three main groupings of economic interest customers, employees, and owners.

It has been increasingly recognised that in a free-market society the customer is "king" and must be served, with steady improvements over time, or the economic viability of the serving organisation will weaken and may fail.

Employees, through organisational process, provide products and services to customers in a competitive market, and together contribute to the maintenance, advancement, or diminishment of their organisation’s viability. Owners provide directly, or by credit, the material resources which support the employee effort, in the hope of economic return. Many for-profit corporations encourage employees to become customer-oriented and also to become and/or think like owners.

For symphony orchestra organisation, customer aspect looks very similar to that of a commercial organisation, at least with respect to customers who buy tickets to concerts. Symphony orchestra has depended singularly on concert revenues and fees for its economic viability.

All customers expect to be served and to receive value, directly or on behalf of others. He, she, or it has a wide variety of opportunities to give away money. In fact, in many cases, more than 50 percent of subscribers provide more than 50 percent of contributed income.

CSO organisation is therefore often being evaluated in many dimensions by a mix of people who make up its constituency. These dimensions include artistry, musical inspiration, educational service, physical appearance, customer friendliness and comportment, economic efficiency, and service to the community.

The economic framework for the CSO organisation becomes more complex with the question: Who are the owners?

It is clear that the local community is the principal beneficiary of a central professional symphony orchestra organisation. It is the community which has the principal beneficial interest in the existence and vitality of such an organisation. The board holds the organisation in trust for serving and creating value within the community. If through this process the organisation succeeds, it is the community which principally benefits. If the organisation fails, the community suffers a great loss. So in contrast to for-profit organisations, employees of symphony orchestra organisations better assure their own economic viability by serving and expanding their organisations. This orientation and effort is all towards the goal of sustaining and desirably expanding their organisations’ economic health in order to provide and sustain clearly valued musical services in their communities.
 
 

ORGANISATIONAL ROLES

The leadership complexity within the CSO organisation can be illustrated by outlining the various formal leadership roles, characterising the organisational service Involved, and enumerating the multiple sources of power and authority. This tabulation can be found in Table 1.

The formal relationships and leadership roles between and within the board and staff groups in a symphony organisation have an outward commonality with the organisational patterns of many for-profit and non-profit institutions. But these subsystems must then be integrated with the music direction and orchestra, where artistic and collective relationships and leadership functions, between and within, are singularly unique and complex. And we must not forget that the total symphony organisation exists in order to foster the art and the work of the orchestra, including its conducting leadership.

It is clear that there are many fundamental differences, conflicts, and overlaps in the power and authority, and in the time horizons and nature of service, of the generic leadership roles within a symphony organisation. In varying degrees, depending on the specific organisation, there can be significant differences in the subcultures and in deeply held beliefs, principles, and values of participants in the different organisational constituencies. And yet, a symphony organisation cannot exist without the inclusion of each of these constituencies, and most communities will only support one central symphony organisation. And finally, for most participants, there is a common love and dedication to classical music and the symphonic art form which moderates interpersonal differences and provides a strong emotional tie among all participants.

Lets mention about on the ecological factors that influence the performance:
 
 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Ecologists study the interactions, relationships, and patterns of settlement of living organisms within their environmental settings. Organisational ecologists study similar interactions among organisations and their environments, using social, economic, and political yardsticks as their tools of measurement.

In any society, the rise and fall of organisations is a fact of organisational life. History itself records similar fates for civilisations, but history does not explain decline directly. The causality is never clear or unambiguous. Rather, as in the rise and fall of Rome, decline theory is a descriptive exercise in which one cites the factors at play during a time period and tries to draw inferences on how those factors contributed to declining performance of a system and its eventual failure. For the symphony organisation, a list of suspected factors follow.

_ Increased amounts of extra-industry competition for time and attention from easily accessible substitute cultural and technology products.

_ Audience aging and difficult recruitment from younger cohorts.

_ Decline in music education budgets and programs in schools, creating a loss of music appreciation and skilled listening discipline needed for audience development and attendance

_ Increased forms and sources of intra-industry competition: location and venue competition; inter-period competition where older released recordings of past masters compete with new interpretations; alternative formats and orchestrations of classical music versus standards; competition between periods (Baroque vs. Romantic); special use after product competing with original intentions (e.g., Mozart for improved learning).

_ Market saturation and listener exhaustion through overabundance of musical product in the market and on the airwaves, forcing more and more exaggerated differentiation strategies to gain attention.

_ Increased competition for scarce resources from a hostile and stingy public and private donor environment.

_Time pressures and lifestyle stress issues curtailing audience attendance, changing ways in which people use music in their lives (e.g., the ease of listening to a CD rather than the hassle of going to a concert).

_ Unequal regional and urban economic development, creating differentials in economic bases of support for the arts (e.g., one city builds a new symphony hall while another lets its hall go unused or be closed down).

_ Multiculturalism and diversity pressures for alternative ethnic traditions in music.

_ A conservative political climate with leanings against "elite" art projects and government spending.

_ Widespread decline of general education standards and performance, affecting the appreciation of the role aesthetics play in the quality of everyday life through the willingness to support artistic activities without practical payoffs or immediate relevance.

_ The dominance of "pop" culture in everyday life with an emphasis on consumerism, mass commercialization, and the "mcdonaldization" of individual choice in contemporary society.

These factors over time, and both directly and indirectly tend to exacerbate ongoing organisational issues and often overwhelm them with the menagerie of problems. These factors are what ecologists might term "fundamental environmental conditions" which help shape the decision paths that organisations need to take. In most cases, the factors cited exist on a grand societal scale. This means that they are usually part of a longer-term historical evolution of society, the results of various trends and developments, some of which are recognisable and transparent, others of which are hidden in the forces of history and only seen in ex-post analysis. Some factors can be influenced, deflected, or contained by various efforts; others, such as technological innovation, audience ageing, the commercialisation ethos, and changing contemporary lifestyles, are fundamental and comprehensive. They have large-scale, non-controllable effects which create a critical decision context for the orchestra management.

Some basic properties of the organisational environment are:
 
 

_ There is diversity of organisations in any grouping of organisations as we see in the classical music community.

_ Environments often change more rapidly than the organisation’s ability to keep up with the changes, thus implying failure and disappearance of an organisational form.

_ A community of organisations is rarely stable because organisations continually arise and disappear, something we see happening in the symphonic organisation population.

With these basic observations, we begin the discussion with some initial ecological assumptions.
 
 

Ecological Assumptions

First, we treat the symphony orchestra as one particular organisational form within the larger classical music industry. The symphony organisation includes the orchestra itself and its supportive administrative apparatus. The collection of organisations share with common activities and patterns of resource needs and uses makes up an organisation population. The mix of populations that reside within the same societal environment, but share differentially in the benefits and problems of that environment, represent an organisational community.

Second, we make a Darwinian assumption that successful music organisations represent successful adaptations to surrounding environments. In the symphony orchestra case, the "organism of study" is a large beast designed to deliver large-scale, relatively long, complex musical works.

The symphony orchestra shares a common genre, generally noted as "classical". The symphony organisation is generally differentiated from other music organisational forms in terms of the intensity of organising effort and expertise that is needed to produce and support that form of music making.
 
 

Eight Ecological Propositions

Given the basic ecological observations above, and assuming the relevance of a Darwinian approach to understanding the dynamics of relationships between and among organisations, we can state some general propositions that may help put the symphony orchestra industry’s issues within a sound theoretical perspective. All organisations go through life cycles with definable stages of initiation, growth, maturity, and decline.

• All organisations go through life cycles with definable stages of initiation, growth, maturity, and decline.
• Industry homogeneity indicates low rates of innovation and variation of form, and thus, low differentiation between members.
• The resource balance between organisations and environments is a dynamic equilibrium which can be disturbed by purposeful intervention, with both negative and positive consequences.
• The relationship between artist and patron audience is symbiotic and functional in the early formation of an organisation, but that relationship can become increasingly dysfunctional if it creates barriers to change and adaptation during later cycles of organisation development.
• All orchestras are equal but some are more equal than others.
• Where internal practices and the organisation culture of the symphony organisation lead to low differentiation, susceptibility to failure increases.
• In cultural organisations, the maintenance of tradition poses a particularly thorny and core strategic survival problem.
• Markets may not be the most effective mechanism of choice to preserve traditions and the organisations that support them. They are, however, relatively efficient mechanisms for reflecting present choice in the allocation of resources through a price mechanism.
• This part of the project presented a partial ecological analysis of the symphony orchestra industry in order to identify the causes of decline and the sources of challenge that make change so difficult . The next step, of course, is to formulate strategies based on this analysis. g Demand for the Products of the Orchestra:

Practical Tactics
 
 

We should clarify what exactly is being demanded of orchestra by consumers. It has been argued that the orchestra produces three products jointly: one that is tangible (music, broadly defined), and two that are intangible.

The intangible products are the private benefits (nonmaterial, most likely) that donors receive in exchange for their charitable philanthropy; and the cultural benefits that society receives from the production and consumption of the orchestra’s music.

While the presentation of more, different, or better concerts might affect consumers’ decisions to attend more concerts or to act more philanthropically toward the orchestra, the principal impact of this tack would probably be on the nature of the products themselves.

A symphony orchestra can expand demand by disseminating production of the tangible product "music" beyond its original audience (expenditures on broadcasting/recording) or by attempting to make the product more attractive and draw in new consumers (expenditures on advertising and expenditures on fund raising). In the case of broadcasting and recording expenditures, it was suggested above that in the case of all but a handful of orchestras, radio and television broadcasting and record-making create an apparent net loss, there is no substantial market for these products.

A live concert is consumed publicly, and can be quite expensive. When compared (in strict terms of efficiency of the dissemination of music) with a compact disc, a concert fulfils this third criterion—apparent wastefulness—as well. Along the way, four basic questions have been answered:
 
 

Q1. Can symphony orchestra impact consumer demand for their products?

Answer: Yes.
 
 

Q2. Can any specific tactics for influencing consumers be identified?

Answer: Expenditures on recording, fund raising, and advertising, if made appropriately to individual orchestra’s circumstances, can be effective. These three are most certainly not the only tools at an orchestra’s disposal; for technical reasons they were chosen to test the first question above. Surely other equally effective tools for expanding demand can be found, such as quality improvements. Future research towards a more comprehensive list of tools available to orchestras is indicated.
 
 

Q3. What general strategies can an orchestra pursue to expand demand for its products?

Answer: Recent work in the field of cultural economics has described two approaches that orchestras can take to increase demand for their products. A strategy emphasises the orchestra’s products as luxuries, hence implying greater social status for those who consume them; it seeks to improve the "audience quality." An other strategy tries to get uninitiated consumers "hooked" on the product, figuring once a music lover, always a music lover. For example during our visits to the CSO Ahmet Balamir (who is a member in the board) wished and expected us to be qualified listeners in the future with the aid of the current project.
 
 

Q4. How do these tactics and strategies vary in effectiveness based on an orchestra’s individual characteristics?

Answer: The chief characteristic identified here was size (in terms of budget). Tests indicate that fund raising is particularly effective for orchestra while recording and advertising for the same orchestra are ineffective or even counterproductive. The opposite was true for CSO: advertising and recording expenditures create a large return, while fund raising expenditures don’t pay for themselves.

This is not to say that size is the only important characteristic of an orchestra in delineating demand-expanding tactics and strategies; size was simply the most apparent factor in the data. Surely other characteristics influence the effectiveness of a tactic or strategy for a particular orchestra. To construct a precise and comprehensive set of policy prescriptions for an individual orchestra, these characteristics would have to be identified by performing an analysis on that orchestra’s data.
 
 

RESEARCH ON  ‘‘THE EFFECTS OF STRESS & JOB SATISFACTION ON THE PERFORMANCE’’
 
 

Purposes

The purposes of this research were to examine the effects of stress and job satisfaction on performance reported by symphony musicians and to determine what musician and orchestral characteristics are associated with higher levels of stress and job satisfaction. A survey was developed assessing satisfaction, stress, and musicians’ evaluations in the orchestra, music directors, and chosen profession.

In addition, the project included several items from an earlier study by Allmendinger, Hackman, and Lehman (1994) that examined satisfaction levels in a variety of organisations, including symphony orchestras. In this respect, we took their method and applied the same procedure for musicians of CSO. Moreover, this project included a standardized measure of perceived stress and also the level of stress reported by symphony musicians could be compared with psychiatric patient and non-patient samples.
 
 

Respondents and Procedure

Study were performed by using a sample of 47 musicians chosen from the Symphony Musicians. During the study, participants were informed that the purpose of the survey was to understand the nature and causes of stress experienced by symphony musicians.
 
 

Overview of Survey

The survey consisted of eight sections. The first was a set of nine items measuring job satisfaction. Respondents rated the extent of their satisfaction with various aspects of their jobs (e.g., benefits, feelings of accomplishment, support and respect received from management), using 7-point scales (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 7 = extremely satisfied).

Section 2 contained 18 items concerning satisfaction with various aspects of orchestras and conductors, including clarity of musical standards, orchestral morale, musician voice in decision making, and the role of orchestral management in settling controversies. Respondents rated the extent to which each item was an accurate description of their orchestras, using 7-point scales (1 = very inaccurate, 7 = very accurate).

The third section was used to assess the extent of symptoms associated with stress-related illnesses. In the context of this survey, the OQ served as a measure of the subjective level of stress experienced by symphony musicians. The items of the OQ concern how the respondent feels inside (e.g., "I feel weak" and "I feel fearful"), how well the respondent gets along with others (e.g., "I have frequent arguments" and "I am satisfied with my relationships with others"), and how well the respondent is performing at work or school (e.g., "I find my work/school satisfying" and "I feel stressed at work/school"). Respondents rated each item for frequency of occurrence over the past week, using 5-point scales (1 = never, 5 = almost always). Standard procedures were used to compute scores on the OQ for each respondent. Scores could range from 0 to 180, with higher values indicating greater perceived stress.

The fourth section of the study consisted of 24 items assessing respondents’ satisfaction with being musicians in their orchestras. These items were more specific in content than the items in the first section. In particular, items in Section 4 addressed the impact of the orchestra on family life, trust in the music director, the effect of being a musician on general health, and the tendency to report or work through physical pain due to performing. Respondents rated their extent of agreement with each item, using 7-point scales (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly).

The fifth section of the study contained 13 items evaluating the music director, including clarity of expectations, quality of teaching, and acceptance of suggestions from musicians. Respondents rated each item for frequency of occurrence, using 5-point scales (1 = never, 5 = always).

The sixth section consisted of 13 items assessing feelings about symphony orchestra performing as a profession, including adequacy of union representation, career choice satisfaction, and control over career path. Respondents rated their extent of agreement with each item, using 7-point scales (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly).

The seventh section of the survey addressed the prevalence of performance anxiety. Respondents indicated the frequency with which they had experienced levels of performance anxiety severe enough to affect their ability to perform to their capabilities. Finally, respondents indicated whether they had successfully used any of the following techniques to control performance anxiety: physical exercise routine, meditation, deep breathing, deep muscle relaxation, focusing techniques, desensitization, and cognitive restructuring.

The last section of the survey asked for the following information from each respondent: gender, marital status, age (divided into six levels: under 20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-65, or over 65), length of service in current orchestra (collapsed into three levels: fewer than 9 years, 9-25 years, or more than 25 years), tenure (yes or no), position in the orchestra (principal/assistant principal or other), instrument group, number of different orchestral positions held as a full-time employee, use of additional job to supplement income (yes or no), and counseling sought for work-related problems (yes or no).
 
 

Creating Scales from Survey Items

Because many sections of the study contain a large number of items, several measures were created by averaging responses to various groups of items. In this way, the large pool of survey items was reduced to a smaller set of measures to simplify subsequent analyses. Two approaches were taken to determine which items should be grouped together and averaged. When a set of items was designed to measure opinions about the same aspect of orchestral performing, a statistic called coefficient alpha was calculated for that group of items.

Coefficient alpha is a single number that expresses how well a set of items form a group. Alphas can range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating the items form a group to a greater extent. Although there is no definitive rule concerning the appropriate level of alpha, values 0.60 or higher are often considered acceptable. To illustrate the use of this statistic, all of the items in Section 1 measure job satisfaction. Consequently, a coefficient alpha could be calculated for these nine items to determine how well they form one group. For each section, separate coefficient alphas were calculated.

The second method used to determine which items could be grouped together was a statistical technique called factor analysis. Factor analysis identifies groups of items from a larger pool that are strongly related to each other and can be combined into several sets of items, each concerning the same underlying idea. For example, if respondents who strongly agree with the statement "I frequently think of quitting this job" tend to strongly agree with the statement "I look forward to moving on to a new position," scores on these two items would be strongly related to each other, and these two items would likely be identified by a factor analysis as members of the same group. Job dissatisfaction could be the underlying idea expressed by these two items and other items with which they are highly related.
 
 

Coefficient Alphas of Sections 1, 5, and 6

Separate coefficient alphas were calculated for the nine items in Section 1, the 13 items in Section 5, and the 13 items in Section 6. Results are shown in Table 2, along with the items from each section. As shown by the adequate value of the coefficient alpha (.86), the nine items in Section 1 assessing job satisfaction adequately form a group, and scores on these items were averaged into a measure. Similarly, based on adequate coefficient alpha values, scores on the 13 items in Section 5 were averaged into a measure (alpha = .89), subsequently called music director evaluation, and scores on the 13 items in Section 6 were averaged into a measure (alpha = .83), subsequently called evaluation of profession.

As indicated in Table 2, some items were reverse-scored before they were averaged together with other items. Reverse-scoring assures that all the items in a measure are scored in the same direction. Prior to averaging, all items were scored such that a higher number reflected a more favorable opinion. For instance, because high scores on the item asking whether the music director "is more loyal to the management than to the musicians" reflect an unfavorable evaluation of the music director, scores on this item were reversed before determining an average across all of the items of the musician director measure. Consequently, the overall averages for each measure indicate the extent to which opinions are favorable. The values shown in the table for each item are the actual averages for each item before any necessary reverse-scoring. For the results look at Table 2 and table 3.
 
 

Factor Analysis of Items from Section 2

Results of the factor analysis of the 18 items in Section 2 identified two groups of items. As shown in Table 3, one group included seven items concerning evaluations of the orchestra. Because these items also displayed an adequate coefficient alpha (.67), scores on these items were averaged into a measure, referred to subsequently as evaluation of orchestra.

The second group of items identified by the factor analysis of Section 2 included seven items concerning perceptions of musician voice in the affairs of the orchestra (see Table 3 ). Because these seven items also displayed an adequate coefficient alpha (.77), scores on these items were averaged into a measure, referred to subsequently as musician voice. As indicated in Table 3, several items from the evaluation of orchestra and musician voice scales were reverse-scored.
 
 

Factor Analysis of Items from Section 4

Results of the factor analysis of the 24 items in Section 4 identified four groups of items. As shown in Table 3, one group included seven items concerning job satisfaction. These items displayed an adequate coefficient alpha (.81). Because the content of these seven items overlaps to a large extent with the nine job satisfaction items in Section 1, all 16 of these items were averaged together to form a single job satisfaction measure that also displayed an adequate coefficient alpha (.90).

The second group of items identified by the factor analysis of Section 4 included eight items that concern dissatisfaction of musician. Because these items also displayed an adequate coefficient alpha (.80), scores on these items were averaged into a measure, referred to subsequently as job dissatisfaction.

The third group of items identified by the factor analysis of Section 4 included four items concerning views of symphony management. Because these items also displayed an adequate coefficient alpha (.63), scores on these items were averaged into a measure, subsequently referred to as anti-management sentiment.

Finally, the fourth group of items identified by the factor analysis of Section 4 included three items concerning willingness to report physical discomfort from performance. Although these items displayed a slightly less than adequate coefficient alpha (.45), scores on these items were averaged into a measure, subsequently referred to as reports of physical distress.
 
 

Extent of Agreement

It is informative at this point to step back and look at the general extent of agreement with each of the measures formed from the prior analyses. For items rated on 7-point scales, which include all of the items except those measuring music director evaluation, an average above the scale midpoint of 4.00 suggests some level of agreement with that measure or item, and an average below 4.00 suggests some level of disagreement. Similarly, for items rated on 5-point scales an average above the scale midpoint of 3.00 suggests some level of agreement, and an average below 3.00 suggests some level of disagreement.

Recall that the items in Section 1 measuring job satisfaction were rated on 7-point scales, with higher numbers indicating more satisfaction. As shown in the column labeled "average" in Table 2, the average level of satisfaction among the musicians surveyed is 4.54, suggesting a slight amount of overall satisfaction. Among the individual job satisfaction items, respondents were generally dissatisfied with the amount of support they receive from management (average = 3.92), but quite satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment and challenge associated with the job (average = 5.52). Items measuring music director evaluation were rated on 5-point scales. As shown in Table 2, respondents reported a slightly unfavorable overall evaluation of the music director (average = 2.84). General dissatisfaction was expressed with how frequently the music director coaches individual players (average = 2.47), defers to the judgments of players (average = 2.64), and takes initiative to improve the organisational structure of the orchestra (average = 2.49), but overall satisfaction was expressed with music directors’ clear expectations (average = 3.37) and willingness to share responsibility for musical leadership (average = 3.10). Also shown in Table 2 is a slightly overall positive evaluation of the profession of symphony musician, evidenced by the average of 4.45 on a 7-point scale. In general, respondents reported they were satisfied with their career choice (average = 5.44), perceived their career as fulfilling (average = 4.88), and would choose the same career path again (average = 5.01). Nonetheless, there was a slight level of disagreement expressed with the statement that orchestras are run ethically (average = 3.53). As shown in Table 3, respondents reported a very slight favorable evaluation of their orchestras (4.14 on a 7-point scale). They were especially happy with the communication of scheduling information (average = 5.43), rewards for excellent playing (average = 4.27), and the solidarity of the players in disputes (average = 4.23), but respondents viewed orchestral morale as less than excellent (average = 3.39). In contrast, musicians reported slight dissatisfaction overall with their voice in the orchestra (3.88 on a 7-point scale). Respondents reported they expect an adversarial stance from management (average = 4.99), and they were slightly critical of the amount of consideration given to their ideas (average = 3.73). They also indicated a lack of opportunities for mobility (average = 4.74) and a somewhat inadequate level of consultation with managers (average = 4.19).

Moreover, similar to Section 1, job satisfaction as measured by the seven items in Section 4 was quite favorable (4.98 on a 7- point scale). Musicians reported they feel good about themselves when they perform well (average = 6.07), were generally satisfied with their jobs (average = 5.11), and disagreed that their jobs lack challenge (average = 2.98). The average for the combined job satisfaction measure containing the nine items from Section 1 and the seven items from Section 4 was also slightly favorable (4.76 on a 7-point scale). Consistent with these findings, overall job dissatisfaction was low (3.43 on a 7-point scale). Average agreement with the items in this measure, which would indicate dissatisfaction, never exceeded the midpoint of 4.00 (see Table 3).

Also shown in Table 3 is the overall average for anti-management sentiment (3.65 on a 7-point scale), which suggests slight overall satisfaction with orchestral management. Players generally disagreed that management is intrusive and negatively affects their performance (average = 2.79); however, they agreed overall that finances and budgets take priority over music (average = 5.03). Finally, musicians indicated a general willingness to report physical distress from performing (4.43 on a 7-point scale). They reported seeking medical attention for pain (average = 5.02), but they also admitted a general tendency to continue performing despite the discomfort (average = 4.57).

Although opinions are not strongly favorable, this analysis of level of agreement paints a somewhat positive picture of musicians’ opinions. Respondents reported moderate levels of job satisfaction and a low level of job dissatisfaction. Generally, they viewed their orchestra favorably, were not overly critical of management, felt free to report physical discomfort, and evaluated their chosen profession positively. Nonetheless, they were generally dissatisfied with the behavior of their music directors and their voice in orchestral matters.
 
 

Comparing Response Levels to Allmendinger et al. (1994)

Nine items in this survey were also included in a study of symphony musicians’ opinions conducted by Allmendinger et al. (1994). Each item was rated on a 7- point scale in both the prior research and this study, permitting comparisons between the opinions expressed. Because the musicians in the Allmendinger sample were on average older and from a wider range of orchestras than our sample, we made comparisons between the two studies by ranking the opinions expressed on the nine common items from most to least favorable. Items were scored such that higher values reflected more favorable opinions.

Specifically, satisfaction with pay and benefits and with opportunities for personal growth and development ranked higher among the nine items in our study than in the earlier research. These findings suggest that satisfaction with these factors may have increased somewhat since the earlier work. In contrast, satisfaction with involvement and degree of respect and fair treatment, as well as the perception that excellent playing pays off, ranked lower in our research than in Allmendinger et al., suggesting that satisfaction with these factors may have decreased over time. Also, satisfaction with opportunities for mobility remained lowest among the nine items in both studies. Note that the items showing an increase in favorability concern personal work experiences, whereas the items showing a decrease concern treatment of musicians by the symphony organisation. Although it is difficult to make firm conclusions based on a small number of items, these results may signal increasing satisfaction with the job of symphony musician accompanied by increasing dissatisfaction with the functioning of the symphony organisation.

Although these results suggest that general job satisfaction levels remain high and may be increasing in some areas, they should be considered in light of Allmendinger et al.’s finding that symphony musicians report moderately low levels of satisfaction relative to other professions. Specifically, the Allmendinger study found that musicians’ reported satisfaction level was only about eighth highest among thirteen professions surveyed. Our results, showing relative stability in levels of general job satisfaction, suggest that musicians have probably not gained much ground on other professions in recent years.
 
 

Coping with Performance Anxiety

Just more than one-half of this study reported experiencing anxiety severe enough to affect their performances. As shown in Table 5, physical exercise, deep breathing, and focusing techniques are the most common methods used to control performance anxiety. Less common are meditation, deep muscle relaxation, cognitive restructuring, and desensitization.
 
 

Exploring Differences in Levels of Stress and Satisfaction

In this part of the report, we explore differences between the perceptions of various groups of musicians. In the analyses that follow, appropriate statistical tests were performed to determine whether differences in opinions between various groups of respondents (e.g., the job satisfaction expressed by men versus women) are meaningful in a statistical sense, and only such meaningful differences are discussed.

Our results are summarized in Table 6, which presents average opinions within selected groups of musicians. Only meaningful statistical differences are included in the table. Blank entries in Table 6 indicate cases for which the differences in opinions between groups of musicians were not statistically meaningful. Reading across the table, the results show that younger and older musicians differ in terms of their perceived stress, job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction, evaluation of the orchestra, and evaluation of the profession, but as indicated by the blank entries under the far right column, younger and older musicians do not differ in their evaluations of the music director.
 
 

Musician characteristics.

Characteristics related to the musicians in the sample include gender, age, length of service in the orchestra, use of medication to control performance anxiety, and seeking counseling for problems related to work. As shown in Table 6, relative to musicians over age 40, younger musicians experienced more perceived stress (as shown by higher scores on the OQ), indicated lower job satisfaction, report more job dissatisfaction, and evaluate their orchestra and the profession less favorably. Also found, but not shown in the table, were the following: younger musicians had a more negative view of management (average = 3.75) than older musicians (average = 3.45) and perceived less musician voice (average = 3.80) than their older colleagues (average = 4.04).

The relationship between musician opinion and length of service in CSO is more complex. In particular, those with a moderate length of service tended to report more negative opinions than those with very little experience or quite a bit of experience in the orchestra. As shown in Figure 1, this pattern is true for job satisfaction and evaluations of the orchestra and the profession.

Finally, those who said they used medication to control performance anxiety reported higher levels of stress, more job dissatisfaction, and a more negative evaluation of the profession than those who did not use medication (see Table6).

Orchestral characteristics

Characteristics related to the respondents’ orchestra were musician status, orchestral section, orchestral season length, and wage level. Wage level emerged as the most important of these factors. As shown in Figure 2, higher paid musicians in the orchestra (as indicated by wage levels closer to the first level) tended to report more job satisfaction, and they also indicated more positive evaluations of the orchestra, music director, and profession. In addition, as shown in Figure 3, higher paid musicians in the orchestra tended to report less job dissatisfaction and anti-management sentiment. It is also generally true that higher paid musicians reported less perceived stress on the OQ measure.

As shown in Table 6, musicians at the principal or assistant principal level reported more job satisfaction and evaluated the music director and the profession more favorably than other players.

Other Factors Associated with Stress and Satisfaction

In addition to examining the differences in stress and job satisfaction between different types of musicians, it is useful to look at which measures are most closely related to perceived stress and job satisfaction. A statistic called a correlation coefficient is appropriate in this study. A correlation coefficient describes the nature and strength of the relationship between two measures. Correlation coefficients can range from -1 to +1. A correlation with a positive value indicates that high scores on one measure are associated with high scores on the other, and that low scores are associated with low scores. A correlation with a negative value indicates that high scores on one measures are associated with low scores on the other, and that low scores are associated with high scores.

For instance, the correlation between job satisfaction and evaluation of the profession may be positive, indicating that musicians who are more satisfied with their jobs also tend to like their profession more. In contrast, the correlation between perceived stress and evaluation of the profession may be negative, indicating that musicians who are more stressed tend to like their profession less.

Shown in Table 7 are the correlation between perceived stress and job satisfaction and the other measures formed from the survey. All of the presented correlation are meaningfully different from zero. To illustrate how to interpret correlation, look at the bottom line of the table, which displays the correlation between job satisfaction and other measures. The value of .62 under the evaluation of orchestra column means that to the extent musicians report they are satisfied with their jobs, they also tend to evaluate the orchestra more.

Reading across the row labeled "Perceived stress" in Table 7, the results indicate that more perceived stress is associated with more job dissatisfaction and more anti-management sentiment, as shown by the positive values of the correlation between these measures and stress. Also, perceived stress is associated with less positive evaluations of the orchestra, music director, musician voice, and profession, as shown by the negative values of the correlation between these measures and stress. Finally, more stress is associated with less likelihood of reporting physical distress.

Turning to the correlation with job satisfaction, shown along the row labeled "Job satisfaction" in Table 7, more satisfaction is associated with less job dissatisfaction and less anti-management sentiment, and more positive evaluations of the orchestra, music director, musician voice, and profession. Also, more job satisfaction is associated with an increased tendency to report physical distress from performing.

It is also important to examine the size of the correlation coefficients in Table 7. For perceived stress, the correlation with the largest value is the relationship between stress and job dissatisfaction (.58), suggesting that extent of dissatisfaction is more relevant to stress than the other measures. For job satisfaction, the correlation with the largest value is the relationship between satisfaction and evaluation of the profession (.73), suggesting that evaluation of the profession is more relevant to job satisfaction than the other measures.

Another way to consider the issue of which measures are most closely related to stress and job satisfaction is to use a statistical technique called multiple regression. In short, a multiple regression analysis puts all of the measures listed along the top row of Table 7 in competition with each other to find out which ones are most relevant to stress and job satisfaction.

The most relevant measures can be considered "key drivers" of musician stress and satisfaction. For perceived stress, the results of a multiple regression analysis showed that job dissatisfaction and evaluation of the profession were the most relevant factors to consider when trying to explain the sources of stress among musicians. For job satisfaction, evaluation of the orchestra, anti-management sentiment, job dissatisfaction, and evaluation of the profession all emerged as the most relevant factors.
 
 

SUMMARY & IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study indicate that the symphony musicians as a group are moderately satisfied with their jobs and career choices. Overall, they reported slightly positive levels of job satisfaction and low levels of job dissatisfaction. They generally approved of the profession, the management, and the orchestra. In addition, the levels of stress they reported are no different from those of average, well functioning individuals. Those reporting more stress were less willing to report physical discomfort due to performing.

Comparisons with Allmendinger et al.’s 1994 report suggest that satisfaction with pay and fringe benefits, and opportunities for personal growth and development, may have increased since the time of the earlier research, and satisfaction with treatment by management may have decreased. Although musicians’ reports are moderately positive in many areas, they clearly see room for improvement in the organisation. Specifically, they are generally dissatisfied with their voice in matters affecting the orchestra, and they are unhappy with the job performance of their music directors.

Moreover, the correlation in Table 7 suggest that increasing musicians’ perceived voice in orchestral matters, and improving perceptions of management and music directors, would likely increase job satisfaction and reduce perceived stress.

The results in Table 6 indicate that musician age has a major effect on opinions. Specifically, younger musicians are more stressed, less satisfied, and more critical of the orchestra and their profession than older musicians. This perspective would suggest that a longer length of service in an orchestra would lead to more satisfaction; however, the results shown in Figure 2, indicating that moderate lengths of service in an orchestra are associated with less satisfaction and more negative evaluations of the orchestra and the profession are inconsistent with this view.

Younger musicians are naturally more hopeful. Less experienced musicians may be quite pleased with their perceived career potential and optimistic about their futures in their newly chosen profession. However, without sufficient avenues for professional and personal growth, the positive attitudes of the newest members of an orchestra organisation may be transformed into increased job stresses and dissatisfaction. Players in the middle of their careers may be beyond the positive influences of the novelty of the job, but not yet experienced enough to reap the benefits of more advanced career stages. As years of service to a given orchestra increase, a musician may see options for career choices diminishing and, therefore, may be more accepting of present circumstances.

Additionally, players who can look back on long careers in an orchestra may take great pride in their advanced career status and evaluate their jobs favorably as a consequence. Alternatively, musicians may turn toward other aspects of their lives outside the orchestra for fulfillment. In any of these cases, perceived job stress could be lessened as musicians’ terms of service increase within an orchestra. Our results suggest that these are important issues for symphony management and players to consider.

Our results also showed that the control of the performance anxiety is associated with more stress and less job satisfaction, along with a more negative view of the orchestra and the profession.

Seeking counseling for work-related problems is another musician factor closely related to perceived stress and satisfaction. Musicians who seek counseling tend to be those who are more stressed, less satisfied, and more critical of their orchestra, profession, and music director. Also, about one-third of the symphony musicians surveyed experienced enough job-related stress or dissatisfaction to seek counseling. Clearly, the stress and dissatisfaction associated with being a musician are very troubling to a substantial number of respondents.

Not surprisingly, higher wage levels are associated with more positive opinions of the job and the profession. Musicians in CSO, offering lower compensation reported more stress, less job satisfaction, and increased job dissatisfaction. Consequently, the importance of wage levels suggests that being a member of the symphony orchestra increases satisfaction levels and generally acts as a buffer against stress..

Findings from correlation and multiple regressions point to job dissatisfaction and evaluation of the profession as most relevant to stress. These findings suggest that the symphony orchestra could reduce musician stress and increases the performance by decreasing job dissatisfaction and bolstering evaluations of the profession. A focus on job dissatisfaction might involve being more sensitive to the effects of performing on musicians’ health and ensuring orchestral schedules interfere less with family life.

In addition, findings also show that job dissatisfaction and evaluations of the orchestra, the management, and the symphony musician profession are most relevant to job satisfaction.

Consequently, job satisfaction might be increased by improving perceptions of the orchestra, the management, and the profession, and also by reducing job dissatisfaction. A focus on improving evaluations of the orchestra might involve increasing solidarity among players, bolstering morale, and providing a more diverse work schedule. Improving perceptions of management might best be achieved by working to alter the perception that management is more concerned with budgeting and finances than the quality of music.