Modeling the Ideal: Constructing a Music Director Profile

A friend and colleague working at another orchestra gave me a great piece of advice at the very start of the North Carolina Symphony’s search to find a successor to Gerhardt Zimmermann as its Music Director in 2001. He warned me to beware what he called the “Anti-Last-Guy Syndrome.” It wasn’t inherently a criticism of – or tribute to – the outgoing conductor’s characteristics. He just said it was natural for an orchestra (meaning its musicians, managers, and trustees) to want to try a different, even opposite, direction from what had come before.
The heart of his advice was this: take the time to assess what the real needs of the institution are, both present and future. What kind of musician would bring out the best in the players? What off-the-podium qualities would inspire Board, staff, and community to do their utmost to aid the orchestra’s growth? How will the organization know when it has found just the right conductor for the job?
It was great advice. When our Search Committee of eight – divided evenly between four musicians of the orchestra and four members of the management and Board – set out on the journey that would eventually end 33 months later with the appointment of Grant Llewellyn as the orchestra’s fifth Music Director, the first thing we did was determine what qualities our ideal conductor would possess. We developed a profile or template against which all of our potential candidates could be measured. Looking back on the process, two years after the announcement of his hiring and a season-and-a-half into his tenure, I’m struck by how nearly perfectly Grant Llewellyn-shaped that original template was. We ended up with exactly whom we set out to find.
Our first step after forming the committee was to craft the model of the ideal candidate. One of the first questions to be answered by any orchestra undertaking a search is to determine the formula for inclusivity: what the ratio of musicians to managers to volunteers should be, and by what process each of those constituencies would determine what their group’s beliefs would be. We decided early on that each of these three groups should be surveyed, using identical evaluations.
Our survey comprised three sections, with the first slightly more qualitative and the second more quantitative, while the third gave an opportunity to comment freely. In the top section, we asked each responder to rank in order of importance the following seven characteristics, with 1 being the most important and 7 the least:
Possesses the highest degree of musicianship; is demanding and inspiring.
Is respectful and effective working with Board, musicians, and staff toward common goals.

• 1. Shows evidence of effective programming and repertoire skills.
• 2. Has an engaging personality on and off the podium.
• 3. Shows professionalism and good judgment in administering orchestra personnel issues.
• 4. Demonstrates commitment to hiring musically varied, high-quality guest artists and conductors.
• 5. Effectively articulates a long-range vision; can lead a transformation of the organization and inspire orchestra, Board, and staff to a new, higher level.

The middle section asked responders to rate their feelings on certain key questions between 1 and 5: 1 for “strongly disagree” and 5 for “strongly agree,” with 3 as “neutral.”The questions ranged from prior experience as a Music Director and the relative prominence of this position as compared to other jobs s/he might hold, to the necessity of permanent residence in the city and proficiency in English.
All three groups surveyed returned identical answers in the top two slots in the qualitative section – that the highest degree of musicianship was the most important trait, and that articulating an inspiring vision was next on the list.After that the orchestra’s responses varied somewhat from the Board’s, and again from the staff’s. For example, the Board (perhaps predictably) ranked the importance of an engaging personality higher than the orchestra did.Interestingly, the staff rated the programming and repertoire component significantly higher than either the Board or the orchestra.
The second set of questions returned an interesting mix of responses – the top answer was different for all three groups, although each top answer was near the top in the other two groups’ results. We learned some very interesting things from this slate of questions. For example, we discovered that permanent residency in the Raleigh area was not of particularly high importance.
The final section, an opportunity to address any issue the responder felt was relevant, led to several very insightful lines of thinking (as well as a few out-of-left-field ones…).
Before constructing the final template, we wanted to hear from the fourth important constituency: the audience. By means of program inserts and a dedicated email address, we invited audience members statewide to offer their thoughts on what characteristics the ideal conductor would have. Again, we got a wide array of useful and less useful comments, but the biggest benefit was that concertgoers felt involved in the process too. When the initial slate of guest conductors was announced, I believe there was a heightened sense of interest in who had made the all-important list.
After the surveys had been compiled, the Search Committee sat down to interpret the results. Several long and fruitful meetings, ably led by Search Committee Chair (and now ICSOM President) Bruce Ridge, enabled us to produce our template. We divided it into three categories: “Must Haves,” “Would Very Much Like to Have,” and “Not a Top Priority.”
We felt any viable candidate would have to possess the following:

• 1. The highest degree of musicianship and the ability to be demanding and inspiring (no surprise there).
• 2. The ability to articulate a long-range vision and lead a transformation.
• 3. Experience working with an American orchestra, and an understanding of the structure of American symphonic institutions.
• 4. Proficiency in English.

We felt that, to succeed, we very much wanted the conductor to have:

• 1. Prior experience as a Music Director at another orchestra.

• 2. A commitment to the North Carolina Symphony as their top professional priority.

• 3. Experience conducting opera and choral music.

• 4. High-level experience as a performer on an orchestral instrument.

• 5. Track record of working respectfully and effectively with Board, musicians, and staff toward common goals.

• 6. Evidence of effective programming and repertoire skills.

• 7. Engaging personality on and off the podium.

• 8. Professionalism and good judgment in administering orchestra personnel issues.

• 9. Commitment to hiring musically varied, high-quality guest artists and conductors.

And finally, we felt that the following traits were not particularly a priority:

• 1. An interest in participating in summer, education, and pops programs.

• 2. “Marquee value” – a name already recognizable by the audience.

• 3. A willingness to relocate permanently to Raleigh.

• 4. Experience using electronic media exposure to enhance the orchestra’s image.

This model was hugely useful in winnowing our original idea list of potential candidates – which, after a period of ferociously active research on the part of the musicians and staff on the committee, had swelled to over 200 names – down to a much more manageable field of 60 or so. If a potential candidate was missing any of the “must haves” and/or too many of the “would very much like to haves,” s/he was set aside. (This process, while laborious, has proven to be of continuing value to me, as colleagues have called for suggested names to add to their search lists.)
Our research sharpened; with each successive cut – first to 30, then to 20 – we spent more time on the phone checking out the potential candidates’ histories. Old friends were called; new acquaintances were made. I can’t remember making more phone calls in so short a time in my life.
Ultimately, we wound up with about 15 conductors in whom we were actively interested. As the lead staff person for Artistic Administration, I began the work of determining the interest and availability of our preferred group of conductors.
Between September 2002 and October 2003, we welcomed 11 conductors to Raleigh for the first time. It was a thrilling and inspiring time, and the orchestra and community alike were galvanized. The incredible cooperation of orchestra musicians, staff, and Board trustees was particularly gratifying. When we successfully launched Grant Llewellyn’s tenure in January 2004, I was as proud of the process as I was of the result. Had we not taken the time to poll each of the key constituencies and really dig down into the critical criteria that would define our ideal, I don’t believe we would have found a conductor as well matched for our Music Director position as its current incumbent.
Scott Freck has been General Manager and Vice President for Artistic Operations of the North Carolina Symphony since 2000. He came to Raleigh after nine years on the staff of the Oregon Symphony.