In my most recent post I spoke to the problems created by managing directors (CEO’s, presidents, executive directors) of performing arts organizations being increasingly asked to make artistic, mission-related decisions as they increasingly move away from their own artistic expertise and acuity. This is a distinct problem that must be addressed. For one, simply recognizing that people in these roles are by necessity making artistic decisions, would help. Currently this function is purposely ignored, so as to maintain the purity of the artistic director concept. Once acknowledged a series of actions could improve the situation: open discussions between the managing director and the artistic director to identify areas of agreement or disagreement, staff development that refreshes the managing directors’ artistic sophistication, and increased attention to the hiring process, acknowledging that artistic sensibility is an important element.
What this situation begs is an analysis and critique of the three-part leadership model in the perfrorming arts, and then a comparison with other models. In this posting I will lay out the problem, then in future posts analyze, critique and compare.
The three-part leadership model includes a managing director, artistic director and board chair. This model appears to take firm shape in the 1970’s, during the great expansion of not-for-profit performing arts organizations. The supervisory relationships are downright weird, in that both the managing and artistic directors report directly to the board chair. With this supervisory model only the rarest examples can be found, and these often quite temporal, where all 3 incumbents cooperate effectively to advance an organization’s mission. These examples generally include individuals who have been in their roles for long periods, and where the board chair and managing director have “selected” the artistic director.
In this arrangement we typically find an artistic director who maintains a partial residence, a managing director who faces the challenge of increasing levels of artistic decision making, and a board chair who holds h/her position for h/her fund-raising “power,” and who often knows little about not-for-profit organizational vagaries (as compared to the commercial sectors) and who has limited understanding of the organization’s art form and focus. It lays the groundwork for so many of the challenges and problems facing prominent organizations today.
It’s interesting that this model does not appear in the visual arts world?
Is the question why managers may be asked to operate outside of their comfort zones, or why artists are so absent from the decision-making process in management issues?
Perhaps more relevant (and widespread) is not managers making direct artistic decisions, but rather the way that management decisions affect the artistic process and its outcomes.
Management is the allocation of resources according to priorities. If resources are allocated a certain way, artistic priorities are affected. Schedules (which have pay implications), travel and housing budgets (which have personnel implications); materials budgets; marketing choices & earned-to-contributed income goals (which affect audience expectations and programming pressures); all put pressure on artists to conform to priorities over which they frequently have no say or input. Add to this that the majority of artists engaged by today’s institutions are not permanent employees, and one begins to see why many organizations do not have vital, dynamic artistic missions.