Ask any arts professional or arts-management academic about the “functions” of arts management and they will likely have a ready list in mind. Production, marketing, management, finance, accounting, fundraising, and such, are common to division of labor in the arts. They show up in department names, job titles, conference workshops, and curriculum requirements in arts management degrees. But I haven’t seen many efforts to capture and sort these functions in more durable and consistent ways – or rather, what I’ve seen has been either too specific to an artistic discipline or too general to nonprofit management writ large.
So, here’s my attempt, posted for commentary and critique, suggestion and revision (either in the comments section, or on this comment-enabled Google Doc).
What’s a “function”? By one of Webster’s definitions, a function is “any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action.” The word comes from the Latin action noun functio (verb fungor) which refers to something performed or executed. While it is NOT particularly productive to consider functions as fully distinct and separate (because they’re not), it CAN BE productive to explore and understand the definable pieces of a whole and their relationship to each other. Worth noting that I don’t count some roles/efforts as functions here (management, policy, strategy, as examples) if they interweave and intermingle many other functions.
What’s “arts management”? By my definition, it’s the “practice of aggregating and animating people, money, and stuff toward expressive ends.” And for these functions, I’m specifically focusing on efforts that cannot or choose not to capture their full cost through earned revenue (generally, not-for-profit organizations or NGOs, although not exclusively).
My current list includes twelve functions and their short definitions, sorted into four categories (which are also evolving, and which may or may not be useful). What think?
ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS (generative, defining/determining the larger action and purpose)
- Creation | Curation
Imagining, invoking, constructing, selecting, and contextualizing creative actions or objects. Creation is the function of manifesting those imaginations into living practice. Curation is the function of assembling creative works into a larger relationship with other actions, objects, or experiences.
ENGAGING FUNCTIONS (outward facing, connective to audience and community)
- Program | Production
Developing, assembling, preserving, and presenting coherent services or experiences related to the created or curated work. - Marketing
Creating, communicating, and reinforcing expected or experienced value for audiences, communities, and societies. - Hospitality (I’m not fond of this word, but I don’t have a good alternate yet)
Welcoming, serving, and supporting guests, visitors, neighbors, staff, and artists. - Contributed Income
Attracting, securing, aligning, and retaining contributed resources. - Earned Income
Designing, deriving, and capturing inbound revenue from goods, services, or access.
ENACTING FUNCTIONS (inward facing, constructive and supportive of the work)
- People Operations
Designing and implementing organizational structures that attract, hire, retain, and develop people within the enterprise. - Spaces | Systems
Selecting, securing, stewarding, developing, and harnessing the built environment and technological infrastructure. - Finance
Managing systems of money, investments, assets, and other financial instruments.
ENABLING FUNCTIONS (at the intersection of inward/outward, framing and informing other functions)
- Governance
Structuring and sustaining purpose, outcomes, rules, norms, resources, and accountability. - Contracting
Negotiating and collaborating with individuals and institutions. - Accounting
Recording, summarizing, analyzing, and reporting financial transactions.
NOTE: This list draws inspiration from Otto Scharmer’s “Twelve Functions of Management” in Theory U, Henry Mintzberg “Model of Managing” in Managing, and a range of other such efforts by Ellen Rosewall, David M. Conte and Stephen Langley, and many others.
Andrew:
Thank you for this. Very thought provoking.
As much of the practice of arts management is supported by public investment and tax-deductible contributions, I am surprised that this list does not include anything about the ‘public good’.
And, maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anything about ‘inclusion’. It seems that as a profession, that we need functions that are rooted in aspirations.
In my reading of this post, there’s no narrowing of the scope of the field to “nonprofit arts management.” There’s no moral or tax-status obligation to serve the public good in for-profit arts management, and sufficient inclusion is determined largely by the market.
If the aim were to apply these twelve functions to nonprofit arts management alone, I think “inclusion” might be incorporated into “hospitality”. I believe that creation and curation are public goods in themselves, and do not need further justification and propping up with additional impacts in often-related fields such as education. But that’s been a lifelong tension in the field: around art for the internal, intrinsic benefits of making art, versus art for some extrinsic purpose often determined by outside funders.
Thanks Heather. Love these additions and elaborations! And yes, these twelve functions are not intended to be exclusive to nonprofits, but rather to any collective endeavor that can’t (or chooses not to) capture full costs through earned income. That means efforts in the commercial vein would have slightly different functions (or different definitions of the function).
Thanks Jerry. Great provocations! I guess I’m thinking of functions as a particular lens on the work. Aspiration, inclusion, public good, or even aesthetic integrity aren’t part of the functions, even though they are often and perhaps OUGHT to be integral to what arts organizations do. Functions are the means not the ends. The ingredients, not the cake. So grateful for your thoughts.
Andrew this is really helpful and provocative. I suppose by design it is a bit clinical sounding, yet certainly comprehensive and accurate as to what we do. But it does remind me a little of when my son asked me what I did all day and ‘d say I talked on the phone, went to meetings and wrote emails. I wonder if within your frame there is a place for what we really do, our pre-occupations, aspirations and problems we try to solve. These can all fit within what you’ve written but they are implicit and in real life work, they are explicit, arguably foundational. In your creativity section I would say that discernment, discovery, judgement, breaking through blind spots and biases, and risk are central to the work. And organizational culture? What arts manager is not desperately wrestling with that challenge, which undergirds the whole enterprise. I’m probably just imagining a different kind of list, not functions, but perhaps practices. Anyway this is what popped into my head as I read your list. Thank you for figuring all that out. Sending you all the best!
Thanks Jesse. So grateful for your reflections and suggestions! I agree that there are MANY aspects of real-world working life that aren’t captured in this list of “functions.” Some of those aspects are present in every function, some are present across many or all of them. As I’m thinking, functions are ONE of many lenses through which to view the work. I’m working on the other lenses, as well! Thanks for sharing your comment.
Hi, Andrew.
Identifying the Therbligs of arts management is a most wonderful exercise and something I’d love to spend a long evening and some good wine discussing with you. For now, I’ll confine myself to the titles you assigned to three functions.
Contributed Income: I’d love to find an alternative to Contributed, not only because you reuse the word as part of the definition (), but more because it doesn’t speak to the motivation of the donor and therefore the means by which it is derived. While I know this leaves out the people who give to get the tchotchkes, passion-based or purpose-based or maybe even alignment-based income might capture the relationship-building process of generating that income more clearly.
Earned Income: This label has set my teeth on edge for more than half a century because of the implication that other categories of income are unearned, even if (as above) you’ve retired that odious label. (Believe me, if you’re able to bring money into your nonprofit arts organization, you’ve earned it!) Perhaps exchange-based income or transactional income* would work.
Contracting: I note that, by using the gerund, you’ve focused on the process of establishing mutually beneficial relationships, whether they’re quid-pro-quo exchanges or enduring partnerships. Where in your constellations does the work of fostering and maintaining those relationships reside? Or are we constantly renegotiating and reinterpreting those relationships and never actually completing the process?
Again, many thanks for this Andrew. It’s another example of why I value you so highly!
* One of these neologisms might provide a new home for funds received from the “sale” of those overpriced t-shirts and mugs I mentioned above.
Thanks Jim! These are great questions/suggestions! Exactly what I was hoping for when I posted this list out loud.
Agreed that “contributed” and “earned” are terrible. You have me now wondering about “exchange income” and “gift income” — even though that’s problematic in different ways (not ALL contributed income is a “gift” — grants have a transactional nature, as do some major gifts with donor strings attached). Or, I wonder if it’s best to LEAVE OUT the motivation of the source of the money, but rather talk about the accounting and tax channels through which that money flows (boring, but perhaps more accurate).
Also agree that “contracting” isn’t quite inclusive enough as a function. My current thinking is that the word includes not only the formal/informal negotiations and agreements, but also the formal and informal maintenance of those relationships and agreements over time. However, the growing/maintaining/navigating of human relationships is a task across ALL functions. Yesterday, I was considering “Battling Entropy” or “Fighting the Tides” as a 13th function, but then thought otherwise.
Thanks so much! I would LOVE to hack through this evolving lsit over wine or other beverage when the opportunity arises!
Hey Andrew!
Thanks for prompting this discussion. I’ve wanted a list like this so many times! In fact, I’ve imagined what it would look like to map these roles onto your 15 questions.
I’ve been spending lots of time thinking about how capitalism drives our need to constantly define, refine, and specialize for the purpose of objectification, and ultimately income. We know in nonprofit world that the more “professionalized” an organization is, the more successful their fundraising efforts are. (Lewis Faulk, Jasmine McGinnis Johnson) And so the desire to clarify those roles (and then presumably educate folks along those lines) makes perfect sense for improving organizational outcomes.
However, those habits of define/refine/specialize are often rooted in a desire for greater efficiencies, objectification (for the purposes of the capitalist enterprise) and oppression. What would it look like to reimagine this with a decolonial lens? Since capitalism and white supremacy drive these kinds of delineations and fractures, how could we use the arts to intentionally embrace the messiness and indulge in *not* being put into boxes? What might these functions look like in a small/no staff BIPOC founded/led/serving organization? The magic often happens in the messiness. Could we use the arts to re-integrate and re-connect these roles toward achieving “whole?”
I would also echo others (and h/t Quanice) who would like to see more of the social good embedded in the roles of the organization. As you continue to develop this, I’d love to see The Arts Managers Social Responsibility folded into each of these roles, or for the roles to even be completely deconstructed with a decolonial lens.