Joe Patti

Waaay back in June, I saw this piece on the Cultural Commons website on partnerships that I meant to write on and never did. So here I go.

Essentially, the Urban Institute did an evaluation of the Wallace Foundation’s Community Partnerships for Cultural Participation (CPCP) initiative. While some organizations involved in the initiative found the experience valuable, there were problems. The biggest being that none of those involved continued the partnerships after the grant funds ran out.

The Urban Institute found many reasons why there were problems. Some had to do with foundations expectations, including a belief that partnerships were the solution to all problems.

Although all of the foundations told us they wanted to support “genuine” partnerships and avoid ventures formed solely to obtain funds, it would appear that in some cases they were unwittingly encouraging precisely such behavior by providing incentives that ironically put creating partnerships before cultural participation.

Other difficulties emerged from friction between the partnering organizations. Some problems came from just the plain fact that there wasn’t enough staffing with time, skills or opportunity to effectively execute the planned activities. And then there were the instances where the partnership just ran counter to the missions of the organizations.

The summary got me thinking about the whole subject of partnerships a bit more. When you talk about them as a concept, they sound great and like the solution to woes. Big companies collaborate with each other and with universities with regular success, why not non-profits? Is there too much ego and desperation to hold on to one’s hard won turf to make it successful?

About two years ago a friend was giving me a tour of her town. Despite having a fairly affluent demographic and strong attendance at other arts events (in some instances HUGE attendance), there was no major theatre group in town. Instead, there were two or three small theatre groups trying hard to get a performance out. It’s too bad they don’t try merging instead of trying to do their own thing my friend said.

Reading this thing about partnerships brought this experience to mind. I am sitting here trying to imagine what compelling reasons there might be not to merge.

-Classical group vs. Contemporary group?
Nah, theatres regularly offer such mixed fare in their seasons

-Avant Garde works vs. Mainstream?
Have to wonder, if you are offering an alternative to another group that has a weak presence itself, are you really offering an alternative at all? Again, market the organization the right way and the varied offerings only make you look more interesting.

Really, the only reason I can see not to merge is fear of losing what ground you have gained and personality differences. (Pretenious guy from NYC vs. the authentic locals, for example.)

This isn’t the same as partnerships where the participants expect to maintain their distinct identities. However, it goes to show if people with much more to gain and lose, (depending which way they go) can’t come together, it is easy to understand why partnerships might have difficulties.

After writing my blog for nearly two years, I finally got around to doing something that seems like a blatantly obvious step–I engaged people at working in a discussion of the implications of an article I wrote on.

Up to this point, I have attempted to translate my theories into policy and practice at my job. People at work do read my blog so from time to time someone initiates a conversation about what a genius I am. Occasionally I refer to a situation that arises as being similar to something I have blogged about.

While I have come into work and asked for feedback on a change I was considering, I have never actively solicited a dialogue specifically about something I have read. A couple weeks ago, I did just that.

I told my assistant theatre manager that I would like her to read The Diversity of Cultural Participation report I wrote about at the end of November. I told her when she was done, she could let me know and we would discuss the implications to our operations when we had the time.

Despite my insistence that she not, my eager assistant manager went home and read it over Thanksgiving. We had our discussion last week. For the most part, our discussion reminded us about the importance of continuing to be hospitable to our audiences so they feel socially fulfilled. (One of the few areas where a negative experience does not get the benefit of the doubt.) We also came up with some promotional ideas to try out after the New Year.

The real value in my mind of the discussion wasn’t in the brain storming and the policy making. The ideas may ultimately yield very little on time and money we may invest in them. The real value was found in process of discussing my vision, her perception of where she is fitting in to the organization, where she is proud about being effective (and where she feels ineffective)and her sharing some ideas she hasn’t felt comfortable mentioning.

There is something about discussing theory that seems to remove some of the restraints on discourse. I guess conversations at weekly staff meetings on the need to repair the golf cart and buy new lighting instruments aren’t conducive to topics like what activities are contributing to one’s self-actualization. Who woulda thunk it?

I am starting to consider doing this sort of thing on a periodic basis with some alterations. (Some folks in the building wouldn’t relish a reading assignment.)

I also got to wondering if any other organizations out there went through a similar process where articles were passed around with the intent of engaging in serious analysis. Actually, I should qualify this by saying passing around in the absence of a crisis. I have seen plenty of articles circulated with dire portents about funding. I am curious about when someone takes the initiative while in a fairly secure position.

I’ve seen boards do it in preparation for retreats. One organization I worked at passed a book around among the senior administration, (I wasn’t one of them, alas), with the intent to discuss it. I don’t know if it ever happened.

Anyone have any tales of conversations they have had on a fairly regular basis where a dialogue about vision and theory transpired? (Note I use the word dialogue– pretty one-sided speeches by the executive director don’t count.)

Email me or pop a comment in the old box below.