As a bassist volunteering on the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra board’s governance committee last season, I was both surprised and somewhat alarmed to be designated to chair a small subcommittee charged with developing a procedure for annual evaluations of the orchestra’s music director and executive director. This situation arose out of our governance committee’s desire to be responsive to the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That federal legislation protects whistle blowers and requires financial disclosure and accountability in public companies. It also requires boards of public companies to develop oversight mechanisms ensuring high-quality operation. Dependent as orchestras are upon significant donor support, they, too, will do well to ensure demonstrably effective oversight of top leadership.
Our discussions revealed that fair and meaningful evaluation, particularly of a music director, would not be easily achieved. Perhaps the most striking dichotomy to emerge was that very few board members felt qualified to make value judgments regarding a music director, while anyone frequenting an orchestra dressing room recognizes that many colleagues hold finely detailed opinions. On the other hand, musicians were less enthusiastic about evaluating an executive director, while a number of board members were quite comfortable with this more business-like task. Our subcommittee’s challenge was to corral this panorama of views into a broadly credible process.
Working with a lawyer/board member, we cobbled together guidelines for an internal evaluation process with an intentionally flexible structure. The process for the music director could be supplemented by information obtained through ICSOM’s excellent conductor evaluation program. This is a very young process, and it’s expected that it will evolve to achieve its mission. I hope that this sharing of our approach might ultimately benefit any number of ICSOM organizations.
Essentially, the subcommittee’s report recommends annual, reliable, objective evaluations of the executive director and the music director. The process should be timed to aid in compensation reviews and the renewal of applicable contracts. Highlights of the report and evaluation process follow.
The evaluation committee, composed of three directors and one musician-elected representative under the direction of the governance committee, should gather and consider information, ultimately making its recommendations to the board chair and the executive committee. Without the musician member, the evaluation committee should also make compensation recommendations.
The evaluation committee is encouraged to gather information as widely as it wants, possibly involving all of the board, all committee chairs, or the executive committee. The report suggests that it might be helpful to maintain the involvement of respective search committees (or members thereof) in the evaluation process.
For both the executive director and the music director, questionnaires would be sent to the heads of the operations, development, marketing, and finance departments, as well as to the orchestra’s personnel manager. Additionally, the executive director and the music director would evaluate each other.
The evaluation committee’s process should be informed by data from the musicians’ artistic liaison committee. That committee will likely gather ICSOM conductor evaluation reports about our music director from our own and other orchestras, taken from ICSOM’s database at Wayne State. Information from other arts organizations and constituencies may be gathered as desired by the evaluation committee.
Proposed questions for evaluation of the executive director explore issues including whether the executive director:
- demonstrates a clear grasp of the organization’s mission
- accomplished the board’s objectives and priorities for the performance period
- supports the current staff and selects qualified new staff
- maintains morale among musicians
- ensures the provision of high quality programs and services
- effectively generates resources for the fulfillment of the organization’s mission
- ensures financially informed decision-making
- works effectively with the board and with ancillary organizations
- cultivates positive relationships with public officials, consumers, and relevant community organizations
- responds effectively to challenges
- has a positive image in the local community
Three narrative questions for the executive director would ask about leadership strengths, areas that could benefit from added development, and areas that should receive more emphasis.
ICSOM’s longstanding conductor evaluation program, while not designed specifically for the evaluation of an orchestra’s music director, can enhance our internal music director evaluation process. Potential questions not covered by the ICSOM form include whether the music director:
- provides inspired leadership to the organization
- programs satisfying concerts
- responds to deadlines in a timely fashion
- communicates effectively
- keeps commitments for appearances
- is reasonably accessible
- has a positive effect on others’ job performance
- contributes to the advancement of the organization’s mission
- has a positive image in the community
- maintains morale among musicians
- ensures the provision of high quality programs and services
- cultivates positive relationships with public officials, consumers, and relevant community organizations.
Narrative questions about the music director might ask which areas could benefit from added development and which should receive more emphasis. Naturally, any evaluation committee would tailor the questions and the response parameters to make them most productive.
After the evaluation committee has communicated its report, the board chair and the evaluation committee chair would meet with the executive director and the music director to review mutually held objectives, deliver the overall assessment, share affirmation of strengths and achievements, relate any gaps or concerns, and perhaps suggest avenues of professional development. Compensation decisions would be communicated at the same time; obviously, this component should resonate with the evaluation message. Throughout this entire process, demands of accountability ideally should be leavened with a sense of support and trust.
The institution of such an evaluation process can only happen with a majority buy-in from the board. It’s likely that board leadership would have to be ready to actively promote such a process among its more ruggedly traditional members. It’s also quite possible that an executive director or a music director might feel blindsided by the institution of such a new program; thus it may be advisable to initiate an evaluation process with an incoming executive director or music director.
The evaluation process outlined above offers an invigorating balance of potential benefits, responsibilities, and risks for all components of large musical organizations. With care, downside risks can be minimized and benefits maximized as we strive to guide our venerable institutions into the future.
Emeritus Principal Double Bassist of the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and Grand Teton Music Festival, Roger Ruggeri remains active as a performer, program annotator, lecturer, and composer. A board member of several Milwaukee musical organizations, he has served as a judge for the Grammy Awards and has been a panelist for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Wisconsin Arts Board. Those desiring further details related to this article may contact Roger directly at roger.ruggeri@att.net.
