(Dis)Harmony in the Symphony (part 2)

Currently, I am a member of the group of cultural managers, specifically the technical-administrative staff of an orchestra. Whenever an event occurs that has an impact on the artistic aspect and I am uncertain, I seek clarification first. I provide an explanation of my emotions, perceptions, and comprehension. Subsequently, I determine whether that approach may be incorrect. I may also turn to a trusted expert musician for a professional reference to explain the details and give me their point of view.

All this before responsible or specific person. If they back up my view, I might share my thoughts. And to criticize artistic matters… well, I really understand that it’s not my place to criticize artistic matters, at least not beyond my management work.

However, in the opposite case, when it comes to management issues and when the people talking to me are artists or musicians, this is not always the case. Some people make harsh judgments when it’s clear that they don’t fully comprehend the situation. They have a fixed mindset, and therefore are not always fair to their fellow managers.

Please do not get me wrong. I know that there are other managers who address fellow musicians the same way. Nobody is spared here.

Sometimes, I don’t know whether to cry or laugh when I hear a word used in its purely literal sense, and its legal definition or its specific definition within the business world is completely unknown. When it comes to legal and economic-financial matters, I can say that I hear plenty of opinions or criticisms that don’t quite pass the test of a well-used technical vocabulary. However, they are employed with such utter conviction that I aspire to possess it myself. If I have the audacity to say it this clearly, it is because I believe that my academic training and my professional career sufficiently endorse me to do so.

Many misunderstandings, intense conflicts, and wounded emotions could be avoided by simply asking before shooting.

Of course, feelings that are hurt. On both sides, we are humans, human beings with emotions and feelings. It is a fact that is often forgotten by all.

Even if we believe that we possess complete knowledge and comprehension of the case, it would be advantageous to formulate the concepts with a question mark before proceeding.

I believe that my proposal is simple, and the article could end here.

LET’S ASK FIRST.

Given that, my readers are generally aware that I am inclined to conduct a thorough analysis of the issues, which is why I am interested in defining the notion of questioning.

What do I mean by asking ourselves

and the colleagues in front of us?

 1. Asking ourselves

Here, I need to go back to the seven reasons I talked about in the beginning[3]. These reasons explain how each group of professionals thinks. By utilizing these seven distinct concepts, I aim to delineate the perspectives that are naturally formed throughout a career, albeit not necessarily in concordance. I think the opposite is true.

It is logical that, if we always work in the same sector or professional group, a veil is formed over the years that obscures our vision. Our personal and professional experiences determine our perception of the world around us. This creates a cloak in front of us that prevents us from seeing things without a preconceived notion.

However, when we work in mixed professional groups, life will eventually require us to open up to different points of view or other ways of doing things. In order to facilitate this approach, I have identified the seven primary factors that impede communication between artistic and technical-administrative personnel [4]

In this continuation, I would now like to clarify how we can remove the blindfold and approach our co-workers in an honest and constructive manner, especially because – and this is crucial to me personally – effective communication and focusing on a common goal[5] are crucial for the smooth operation of a company or ensemble, something that can only be achieved by us all.

a. Breaking our fixed mindset, as reflected in the seven reasons

When I say, “We have to ask ourselves first”, I mean that we have to find out if, perhaps, we are not seeing things as clearly as we think we are (whether we like it or not, we are all affected! ), because this veil blocks our view or gives us preconceived fixed ideas that prevent us from seeing the issues at hand from the other person’s perspective.

Personally, I am aware that I am influenced by my experiences. To all of my readers who believe this is not the case, I ask you to at least allow the idea. With that, we would already have achieved a first step.

If it is clear to us that our eyesight is distorted by colored glasses, then we will accept that the people in front of us are the same.

It is essential that, especially in the case of discrepancies, we realize that the musician sees an issue from his or her point of view of excellence and perfection, while we managers think more about performance and profitability, i.e. the process. We’ve made a huge leap forward if both sides accept this minor difference in approach to a problem.

We should also consider our own strengths and weaknesses and those of the people in front of us, i.e. the other six reasons that hinder our communication.

Ultimately, I urge us to be generous.

We all make mistakes at some point. I think we can all have a bad day. There are fears and insecurities that we all suffer from. We all have something to learn every day.

Let’s be generous with others, but also with ourselves, and work on what unites us, rather than what separates us.

b. Break with ideas that form prejudices.

As an addition to the previous point, and I ask to be allowed the redundancy, we must ask ourselves if we behave perhaps under the effects of some prejudice towards artists-musicians, on the one hand, or cultural managers, on the other. If that is the case, I remove my blindfold and re-examine my surroundings.

Being honest and critical of yourself is important.

2. Asking colleagues and interlocutors

At this point, the effortless part remains: ask the person we are talking to, colleagues, musicians or managers about their needs, circumstances, motives and intentions for doing or not doing certain things. Let’s use open-ended questions. Open-ended questions are questions that are not answered with a yes or no answer. These are questions that begin with who, where, and how much. These are questions such as “What has led to a certain situation?” “Who else is responsible or involved?” “What legal or company rules condition the carrying out of a certain task?“

The most effective approach is to familiarize ourselves with our interlocutor and the circumstances that surround him or her. This is the most logical approach for concluding any negotiations with flying colors[6]. We must pay attention to them and endeavor to comprehend their intentions.  It is better than blithely interpreting to ask again: “Is it correct that…”, “If I understood you correctly…”, “Did you intend that to go?“.

In fact, negotiation practitioners consider information gathering to be the first objective of the negotiation process. We must ask questions that range from the most general to the details, from the action or facts, through the motives and methods, to the more specific questions such as the whys.

A good negotiation involves seeking to understand the motives of the other party and using this information to defend one’s own point of view. I will talk more about this in the third part of this article. [7]