I wrote this opinion piece for the July/August 2006 issue of Inside Arts, the magazine of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters [available on-line (registration required)]. I reprint it here with my permission.
In his recent monograph, Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins makes a rather bold statement: "We must reject the idea — well-intentioned, but dead wrong — that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become ‘more like a business.’" His point is that most businesses are poorly run, and that many business practices correlate with mediocrity, not greatness. So, to him, telling nonprofit organizations to "run like a business" is like telling artists to lower their standards, or telling a visionary leader to "aim low."
For those of us who have been struggling to convince cultural leaders to work with more focus, more discipline, and more responsiveness, Collins’ words come as a bit of a blow. But I have to admit he has a point. For the past decades, our industry has fundamentally misunderstood what it means to run "like a business." As a result, we’ve tended to become more rigid, less joyous and increasingly disconnected from the communities and the creative spirit we were formed to serve.
In the Arts Administration MBA degree program I direct, we get to see both sides of the question — dwelling in a School of Business, and working every day with cultural nonprofits. From that perspective, I suggest a six-point alternative to "running like a business," to give ourselves more worthy targets:
- Arts organizations must strive to be better than a business.
Being responsible, accountable, transparent and responsive is the lowest standard we should set for ourselves. Let’s be exceptional. - We must use business tools with an artist’s hand.
Business tools are merely ways to see the world, and ways to structure our interaction with it. Let’s be like the artists around us and explore those tools with creative abandon. - We must embrace our roles as social engineers.
So much of our work involves engineering compelling social experiences and catalytic community space. Let’s learn the tools of those trades with the same energy and effort we commit to our more familiar tasks. - We must define our own goals, rather than having them assigned to us.
We are continually lured by outside measures of success: economic impact, educational enhancement, social service. If these are our goals, let’s embrace them. If not, let’s clarify our purpose to our constituents and ourselves. - We must work with clarity and discipline.
Nonprofit arts organizations don’t have the luxury of elbowroom; every action must be taken with elegance, intent and an openness to learn and improve. - We must calculate our efforts in multiple currencies.
There are a multitude of resources beyond money that drive what we do: joy, discovery, connection, sense of purpose, sense of place and on and on. Let’s make room in our spreadsheets and strategic plans to ensure we’re measuring what matters.
In the end, behaving "like a business" is a matter of semantics. Arts organizations are businesses, so their behavior is businesslike — just as good or just as bad. The deeper question is what kind of business do you want to be? And what skills and perspective do you need to get there? It’s not about mimicry. It’s about clarity, curiosity and courage.
Bravo!
Too many artists feel that money is “filthy lucre” and take steps to avoid it, some perhaps unconsciously. In my view, money is not emotional. It’s merely stored up energy, time, and influence. By having more of it, we’re better able to marshal resources and accomplish our goals. To ignore the money side of the arts business is as foolish and narrow-minded as ignoring the creative side.
Anyone can make money by prostituting oneself. And anyone can refuse to make money by ignoring the business side of the arts. What’s difficult is to maintain artistic integrity while generating enough income to pay one’s bills.
I agree with Robert. Too many organizations think the term “nonprofit” is an umbrella that protects them from the world of finance. A for-profit business aims to have the input greater than the output every year. It makes sense if they want to grow. Yet so many nonprofits make it their goal to “break even”. There is at times a mindset that says if they budget a surplus it makes them “dirty”.
I forget the name of the speaker who mentioned this in one of Andrew’s art admin seminars (if you’re out there please take the credit), but perhaps the use of the term “nonprofit” instead of “not-for-profit” sends a subliminal message about finance. The terms do not appear that different, but take a close look and what do they actually say to you? (This use of verbiage was one of the favorite debates among the 2006 Bolz graduates.)
Further agreement from this side of the pond in the UK. Points 4 and 6 in your alternatives list are crucially important. Under the influence of 18 long years of Thatcherism the arts in Britain were forced to value themselves primarily in terms of economics or regeneration. Blair’s agents since 1997 have not abandoned this, but overlaid it with a ‘social value’ policy obession. Although the Secretary of State for Culture talks up ‘artistic value’ per se in her speeches, government actions and directives tell another story. The Arts Councils have broadly gone along with the government rhetoric, and thereby lost much credibility with the professional cultural sector. Other European countries are currently grappling with the same dilemma. Where the State is still the major contributor (particularly in relation to heritage) you can’t ignore it, and you therefore have to add ‘government’ to your list of targets for clarification of purpose. Not easy, when they are also the paymasters!
We are still making transitions from what arts creativity was and how the arts were paid for in a monarchy to how this works in a modern capitalist democracy. I do not believe there was more mass social acceptance of the importance of “the arts” from the twelfth century on up to the modern era. In fact art used to be made for patrons, not for the general public as a rule, and not via the patron’s money for the good of the general public which is our present route. If anything, art for the public was meant to educate, not entertain, as a regular joe/sephine had no schooling at all. Patrons were rich. The Catholic Church as patron was rich. Arts patrons had the power not only to employ but to kill. The money to do and to make art came from a very few powerful and wealthy people whose self-interest it was to purchase great buildings, good church or dinner music, great portraits and interior decor, rich jewellery, and enjoyable entertainment.
I wonder what portion of all that activity we still call good art today? The point is, I don’t think art was chosen and driven forward by arts managers — creative or otherwise — who knew how to manage “the arts” in society creatively or otherwise, or how to turn artists into business people, or how to write interesting project proposals on how the art would benefit the community, or how to pursuade the masses that they ought to like the statues in the town square or the King’s latest entertainment.
The “masses” appreciation of art — or lack of it — was never a factor for the choice about how to give “support to the arts”. The masses didn’t count politically till the 18th century.
Somehow I see us now as still upholding the pre-democratic vision of what the arts are and do, without making the appropriate adjustments given that our power structures and political ideals are so very different. Managers are now separated from the money source, from the self-interest of the patron, and from the work of the artist, and therein lies one of the rubs. The other shift is the recent removal of the arts and the creative life from public education. As arts education of the people disappears, their ability to recognize and empathize with an art form when they meet it, disappears.
If we worry about the bottom line in arts management, we should recognize that it exists in social education, not in business practice, and pour every ounce of creative energy and funding we can into our schools to allow every single child in each of our countries to sing, put on a play, write poetry, play an instrument, paint and draw live bodies (no one will ever be able to blow up a body if they have spent hours painting a living naked person: this should be a core curriculum). Then we would have both democracy, general arts creativity, and great audience attendance.
After years of experience on the administration side of the arts I appreciate all of your points. I wish however, that there was one more. Artists and administrators alike need to consider their audience and how they want to relate to that audience. What does this art form mean to the viewer/listener? Do we intend that the audience participate with this art? Do we want to distance ourselves from the audience or bring the audience in? There are many more questions and issues. At least you didn’t reduce the audience to “bums in seats.”
Becoming MORE like a business does not necessarily mean BECOMING a business. I understand fully the reservations arts professionals have about swimming in shark infested waters. What it does mean, however, is delivering on increasing connections between the arts and their public through more than rhetoric. In my view, the adoption of a Project Management framework would greatly improve the operation of the sector as a whole, including funders, managers, artists. Project Management focuses on delivery and balanced evidence for evaluation. It makes explicit the value of the arts in a format that leads to sustained public commitment. Balanced evidence and accountability – quality and numbers – are understood by paymaster and public alike. Christopher Gordon’s comments indicate that, sadly, within the profession we are some way from recognising that politician and public, in a mature democracy, actually stand for similar priorities. If nothing else, Thatcher’s legacy shows that politicians can sense the public mood all too well. Blair is not doing too badly either: could it be that his ‘social value policy obsession’ rests on an increasing public outcry for access?
Excellent post and great responses. We had a similiar debate over this kind of story on my nonprofit fundraising blog. Several responses and back and forth from other bloggers:
http://donttellthedonor.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-could-not-disagree-more-donor-insite.html
“The Arts” know only one business model, the “handout” model. This model presumes that society owes artists something just because they are artists and are somehow entitled. If governments stopped subsidizing the personal pursuit of creative impulses, art will continue to exist. Art has been here for millions of years and it will continue to exist without public support. It is insane to tax productive members of society and then hand their money over to a narcissistic cultural elite so they can rabbit on about “maintaining artistic integrity.” If wealthy individuals choose to spend their personal wealth on someone’s artistic pursuits, then so be it. But please do not take taxpayers money and then flatter yourselves by calling this “running a business.”
To Gene Gold:
I would like to suggest one small change to your post: If you substitute the term “banker” for “artist”, you are absolutely correct.
I take issue with two points of your post. You seem to assume there is only one kind of “artist”. There are many kinds of arts in the US, some of them commercial. The question of public funding is that there are parts of our society that are worthwhile which function better outside of the market place. The military, roads, police, the fire department, and religion are some examples of this. Another is research and development. The government has long driven research and development in this country. The internet is one clear example of this, which was funding for many years by the government. Much of commercial music we all enjoy today relies heavily on electronic music, which was developed with heavy funding by government backed institutions, such as IRCAM in Paris.
You also seem to imply that artists are some-how not “productive members of society”. In fact, artists as whole produce a great deal for society. Not only do artists produce a great deal of art, most of it for free; most artists are middle class, and pay a larger percentage of their income on taxes than “wealthy individuals”.
Gene:
I agree with you completely, with one small edit to your post: “This model presumes that society owes [bankers] something just because they are [bankers] and are somehow entitled. If governments stopped subsidizing the personal pursuit of [financial] impulses, [banking] will continue to exist. [Banking] has been here for millions of years and it will continue to exist without public support. It is insane to tax productive members of society and then hand their money over to a narcissistic [financial] elite so they can rabbit on about “maintaining [market] integrity.”