So Your Music Organization Needs A New Leader...Now What? By Thomas Wolf
How should a classical music organization be led? Assuming a tax-exempt nonprofit organization with a board that is empowered to make such a decision, what kind of leadership model should the trustees choose? Perhaps a single individual should be in charge of everything. Or maybe two leaders are best where one deals with the administrative side of the operation and the other deals with artistic matters (much like many museums have both an administrative and curatorial head). Or might the board want to consider some kind of collective leadership dispersed among many people?
Over the past year, I have explored this question with a number of individuals associated with organizations representing different models of leadership. In one recent case, the board was in the process of replacing a long-time, departing founder-director. In others, it was clear that the board would be facing such a situation soon and some trustees were getting anxious. In my interviews, I asked a simple question: what model of leadership do you think works best? Answers varied but one thing was clear: many different leadership models have been successful. Finding the right one is crucial to organizational success.
As I share what I learned, consider the model with which you are most comfortable. Is there one you prefer and why?
Boris Goldovsky was a general director of his two opera companies for decades, overseeing all aspects of the artistic and operational sides of the organizations.
1. The General Director Model: This model was common for a number of musical organizations, especially ones formed in the decades after 1950. A single person led the organization and reported to a board of trustees. That individual was responsible for both artistic and administration matters, overseeing the musical personnel and supervising an administrative staff as the organization grew. The leader generally lived in the organization’s home community (though for music festivals or seasonal organizations the director might live there only during the season when programs were offered). The leader represented and was the face of the organization. Opera companies especially favored this model (and many still do). While some excellent examples of general directorships can be found in other types of musical organizations, the model appears to be on the wane today.
I was first introduced to the general director model by my uncle, Boris Goldovsky, whose two opera companies—first New England Opera Theatre[1] and later Goldovsky Opera Theatre—were under his oversight and supervision. Though many of us managed parts of the operation—for example, there was an administrator who handled the details of Boris’ Carnegie Hall-based studio operation and I served as the company manager on fourteen of his national tours—we all knew who was boss and we reported to him. Boris was the artistic leader—choosing repertoire, hiring singers and orchestra members, staging operas, coaching singers, preparing translations for operas to be presented in English, and even conducting. But at the same time he supervised the administrative staff, did the bulk of the fund raising, and was the sole staff person reporting to the board. Later, when my brother and I founded an organization called Bay Chamber Concerts in Rockport, Maine—initially a seasonal concert presenting organization—we chose that model. First I, then my brother, and subsequently, after his death, I again served as general director over a period of some 50 years.
2. The Split Artistic/Administrative Model: Here the leadership of the organization is split between two people – one responsible for artistic matters, the other administration. While on occasion, one individual reports to the other, more commonly both report to the board independently. Generally, the administrator (called “executive director,” “general manager,” or some similar title) is a salaried staff person, often full-time. The artistic leader (sometimes called “Music Director” or “Artistic Director”) is often a practicing musician with a performing career and is part-time with the organization. In many orchestras, this individual not only conducts the ensemble but is in charge of programming, artistic personnel, and related matters. He or she may have more than one such assignment and is usually not full-time for any single organization.
There are two different ways in which this model is implemented:
a. Both individuals resident in the community: In this case, both the administrative head and the artistic leader reside in the local community. Particularly in cities that have large musician communities like New York where artistic directors of local performing organizations may teach at a conservatory and have other local employment, this is common. But we also see this model in smaller communities where the artistic head may be a distinguished performer who has another local (often university or conservatory) affiliation.
When Bay Chamber Concerts added a community music school to its concert program, a general director model no longer worked and leadership was split.
b. Administrator local, artistic leader remote: In some cases, the administrative leader lives in the community, but the artistic director does not. Generally, there is an agreement about how much time the artistic leader will spend locally and compensation often allows for expenses when the individual is on site. For decades, this has been the most common model among symphony orchestras but increasingly today it is also common for other kinds of musical organizations such as large ensembles, presenters, training institutes, festivals, and so on. Many of those I interviewed themselves operated as artistic leaders under this model, often for more than one organization.
Taking my own experience into account, I ran Bay Chamber Concerts as a general director for years, residing in Rockport, Maine during the concert season. But towards the end of my tenure, the organization adopted a split directorship. Part of the issue was that the organization had become much larger and far more complex and was now a year-round operation. It had formed a community music school to add to the concert component. Much as I loved the local Maine community, I was not prepared to live there throughout the year nor did I have the skills or interest in running a community music school. In addition, the trustees felt that when I retired they would be unlikely to locate either a suitable general director or an artistic director locally, one who was active with other musical organizations nationally and internationally and whose extensive contacts would be important to the continued quality of the concert program. A non-resident artistic director with a full-time local executive director (both reporting to the board) was their solution, which has been quite successful.
3. The Artistic Partner Model: According to this approach, there is a CEO running the administrative side of the organization but much of the artistic leadership is split among more than one individual with different musicians curating a part of a single season or multiple seasons. One example of this is the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra, which may have as many as five artistic partners in a season and where the orchestra musicians themselves play a role in artistic matters. In some cases, an artistic partner will be a performing musician or a composer or even an educator/performer (as has been the case with Robert Kapilow in Saint Paul). Artistic partnerships are not permanent appointments but individuals will be hired for a single season or two or three. The great advantage of the artistic partner model is that it allows for multiple artistic visions and programs. The disadvantage may be continuity and the ability to implement a single compelling vision. It is also true that an artistic partner does not deal with personnel decisions of resident performing ensembles (like a resident chamber orchestra for example) and some other mechanism is required for handling musician selection and retention.
4. The Rotating Music Director Model: A variant of the Artistic Partner model is to change music directors regularly (even annually) as has been done at the Ojai Festival in California since 1947. While Ojai does have a coordinating artistic director, each year the festival is built around and planned with a single music director who may be a performer, conductor, composer, an ensemble (like the Emerson String Quartet), or even a theatre director (like Peter Sellars). Generally, this model works best in organizations that have relatively short seasons.
5. The Collective Leadership Model: A very different model has emerged in the field where leadership is dispersed among several people—generally the musicians who make up the organization’s artistic force. Collective leadership isn’t new but its increasing popularity, especially among start-up groups, is. There are numerous variants of this structure but what is common to all of them is a sense that leadership should not reside in a single individual or even two but should be shared among those who are the heart and soul of the organization. There must still be a board of directors that retains fiduciary and legal authority if the organization wants to achieve and maintain tax-exempt status and in many cases, several of the musicians will serve on the board and guide its decisions. Ideally, though, the board will retain some independent authority over budgets and compensation in order to avoid conflict-of-interest among the leadership.[2]
Many organizations that operate according to this model began with musicians collectively being responsible for all artistic and administrative tasks. With growth and increasing complexity, the next phase usually involves allocating certain responsibilities to specific musicians—a kind of division of labor. But over time, even this proves unworkable as the organization grows. A general manager or executive director is then hired and later, perhaps, more staff. But in this scenario, the musicians continue to exert authority over the individuals’ hiring and tasks. In certain organizations which are collectives, the executive director will report independently to the board.
A good example of a successful collective structure is the Boston-based ensemble called “A Far Cry,” which has used its leadership model to nurture a distinct approach to music-making and management since its founding in 2007. The self-conducted orchestra is a democracy in which decisions are made collectively and artistic leadership rotates among the players. This structure has led to consistently thoughtful, innovative, and unpredictable programming—and impactful collaborations with celebrated performers and composers. In recent times, A Far Cry has risen to the top of Billboard’s Traditional Classical Chart and celebrated two Grammy nominations. The organization began with no separate administrative staff—musicians did everything. As of this writing, it has an administrative staff of three and is planning to add more.
Democratically led, the musician members of A Far Cry constitute the leadership structure.
One of the challenges of a collective structure in which decisions are made democratically is the number of person-hours required to discuss and make those decisions. For musicians with demanding careers and young families, this can sometimes lead to musicians leaving the group, though there are other reasons for doing so including prestigious and more lucrative offers from other organizations.[3]
With this dizzying array of leadership options, it is perhaps obvious that there is no single best model that will fit every musical organization. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Organizational mission, program goals, collective values, and a clear philosophy of human interaction are some of the elements to consider in choosing the proper model.
Thus, my question at the beginning of this post may have been a bit unfair. I asked which model readers preferred and though you very well may have one, a completely appropriate answer to that question is “it depends.”
[1] This should not be confused with “Opera New England,” the touring branch of Sarah Caldwell’s Boston Opera Company, which was formed after Boris Goldovsky closed down his New England Opera Theatre and formed Goldovsky Opera Theatre based primarily in New York.
[2] There are some examples where the musicians oversee both the administrative and artistic leadership and also constitute the entire board. However, this becomes problematic if musicians are paid for their work by the organization. It is desirable to ensure some board independence over financial decisions to avoid conflict-of-interest situations that could run afoul of the Internal Revenue Service. If the board sets musician compensation, for example, it is best if musicians do not have complete control or majority votes in such determinations.
[3] For example, one member of A Far Cry left to become principal cellist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.