Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management
NewsRoom Contact Us

Management Philosophy

Heading To Other Shores

by

I was pleased when Ron Spigelman over at Sticks and Drones chose to start Take A Friend to the Orchestra Month by acknowledging the poise with which the Honolulu Symphony Orchestra musicians and administration were conducting business in tough economic times in contrast with the tensions other classical music organizations were facing. Granted with their pay six weeks in arrears, the moral victory didn’t go very far in putting food on the Honolulu musician’s tables or paying their mortgages, but at least they had the consolation that someone noticed and appreciated their approach to the situation.

Unfortunately, things may be getting a little tougher for the symphony. The Honolulu Symphony announced yesterday that Executive Director Tom Gulick will step down when his three year contract expires on June 30. (Seems like it was just last year I was heralding his arrival.) Gulick has been credited with doing much to increase the financial support and income of the symphony. Whether he is leaving of his own accord or because the board decided he hasn’t done enough is unknown to me at this time. In any case, this leaves the symphony without executive leadership for a time and requires the expenditure of time and dwindling resources to search for another.

Though if you think about it, Honolulu’s composure might work to its benefit. If you are a potential executive director, you know just about any organization you join in this financial climate is likely to be in tenuous financial shape. Wouldn’t you be more inclined to interview with an organization which has proved it can resist the general trend toward acrimonious relations between administration/board and musicians? (Not that living in Hawaii doesn’t have its appeal as well.)

Is Your Price Right?

by

Via Bill Byrnes, Dean of the College of Visual and Performing Arts at Southern Utah University, I recently became aware of a company called The Pricing Institute. Their services seem to focus mostly on optimizing the pricing structure of arts organizations.

My initial thought was that price does not develop relationships. If I am going to have a consultant come in to help me improve my organization, pricing while important, isn’t going to solve my organizational problems over the long term. But what isn’t valuable to me as theatre manager has worth to blogger me because I know it may be of interest to my readers.

An observation made on the Pricing Institute website bears noting. Price may not develop relationships, but it can ruin them. “Excessive or irregular discounting practices can leave customers confused and even resentful,…”

Taking a look at the case studies, it is clear that they don’t just emphasize retail price points. One of the problems they saw with Huntington Theatre Company’s approach was that the “marketing messaging was focused on pricing vs. value.” For Philadelphia Live Arts, one step they took was creating a separate identity for the Live Arts performances versus Fringe performances.

Reading through the website, I can see the value of the the services they offer. I didn’t really doubt the importance of making wise decisions about pricing. Given that fund raising is becoming more difficult, effective generation of earned revenue becomes crucial. I readily admit that I could certainly use some guidance in making prudent pricing decisions. But as I said, I can see this sort of a examination as part of a larger consultant visit.

I suspect that most arts organizations would be of the same mind. They probably don’t hire a consultant until there are so many areas of concern that guidance in just one area isn’t enough.

Come to think of it, that might be why the Pricing Institute is structured the way that it is. It is a joint venture between three different consultant firms. The structure may allow them to give stand alone pricing guidance to those who just want that while also enabling three different consulting organizations to provide great pricing advice when addressing organizations with larger concerns by calling on the expertise of their partners. As I said, I don’t know if that is how they operate, but the ability to offer a sort of “value added” service could be advantageous to all.

Time To Review

by

I am feeling a bit under the weather so I am not of a mind to blog very long today. However, while I was having trouble sleeping last night, it occurred to me it has been awhile since I revisited and revised our front of house procedures manuals for house managers and ushers and more importantly, our emergency procedures. The latter is especially important since we just had an Automated External Defibrillator installed on the lobby wall.

While I ask the house managers to refresh their memories every year and we review procedures with our ushers at the beginning of every season, we are actually operating on instructions I wrote when I first assume my current position. Those instructions in turn were adapted from a manual I used at another place of employment. There is nothing unsafe about the procedures I initially generated, they just may not be the most appropriate for interacting with our community in our specific physical plant.

My suspicion is that practice has diverted from the letter of my instructions. The next step is likely to be bringing the instructions more inline with reality while injecting bits of structure where it might be lacking so our service to audiences is a little sharper.

I have given the task of revising the instructions to our assistant theatre manager. He deals with front of house staff and their activities much more frequently than do I. He also hasn’t had a hand in writing any of the procedures where the rest of the staff has so he has no investment in any of the work. I have suggested he might want to call meetings to discuss revisions.

So I figured I would encourage everyone to consider reviewing and rewriting your procedures both for safety sake but also to ensure you are meeting your audience’s current expectations for their experience with your organization.

More Impact Of The Economy Conversation

by

Yesterday, the Association of Performing Arts Presenters had a follow up to the conference call on the economy I listened in on in December. Given that there weren’t enough phone lines to accommodate all those who wanted to attend, this time they employed a webinar format so people could attend online. You either listen directly or download the web session.

The call is about 90 minutes long and many on the panel mention strategies and opportunities people can take. What caught my ear and interest were the approach to programming described by Marilyn Santarelli, Executive Director of the F. M. Kirby Center for the Performing Arts. She talks about how she is re-negotiating payments to artists per Numa Saisselin’s suggestions in “Arts Presenting Is Dead.”

As Saisselin suggests, she goes to the artists and talks about their sales to date, their marketing efforts and are honest about their break even point. They asked that the artist share in the risk and lower their price. They proposed that after reaching the break even point, they would start to restore to the artist “dollar for dollar from the first dollar whatever discount you gave to us.” She found the artists that bought in to this option worked harder to help promote the show with more interviews, b-roll, etc. The alternative, she told them, was canceling the show.

It sounded as if they had only done this starting last December. I am curious to know if this inhibits her planning for her upcoming season as artists and agents worry that what they initially negotiate may not be final. Likewise, would they be more open to booking with someone who has a workable alternative to cancellation if things go poorly.

She also talked about their ticket sales strategy. Her organization is discounting early in the season and offering discounts to a wider variety of people including subscribers and sponsors. I am not sure, but it sounded as if they were expanding the groups of people who are eligible for discounts. As the season goes on, the prices will go up. She hopes if they message this approach correctly, people will buy early realizing they are getting a bargain. No mention of whether they were loosening their exchange policy for people who committed early. The Kirby Center has only implemented this on a few show so far and did so because 60% of their sales were happening in the last few weeks. I suspect that this approach will vary in success from community to community and some will still rather wait and see than to buy now and that the higher price closer to the date may prove a disincentive to those with many options.

These are just some of the strategies and opportunities being employed that are mentioned in the webinar. If you are eager for a little guidance, give it a listen.

Looking For Shows In All The Close Places

by

Last Friday I went to First Friday downtown. My main motivation was that my assistant theatre manager and his wife were performing at an outdoor stage. The theme was Asian performance so there were performances of gamelan, kulintang music, Balinese, Cambodian and Thai dance and a couple of fusion pieces.

While I came to support a friend, I was soon evaluating performances for suitability in upcoming seasons. We have been told to expect that we are all but guaranteed to lose $20,000 from a regular source so I need to identify generally inexpensive quality performances. Ultimately, I didn’t think any I saw that night were quite right and a couple, pretty awful. Before I made this determination I started to ponder how I might structure future seasons.

I started to wonder if it might be possible to follow Numa Saisselin’s example and announce a shorter season in my brochure next Fall with the intent of adding two or three performances as the opportunity presents itself. There are always a few shows that do well and a few shows that attract a third of what the best shows do. My expenses are generally the same for all of them so if I can reduce my costs a little, I will be doing better. What contributes either directly or indirectly to my costs is distance people have to travel so I can realize some significant savings if I can control those expenses. Since people are making their attendance decisions extremely close to the performance dates, I don’t think I would lose anything by having some events absent from the season brochure.

I often have a general idea of which shows will have a lower appeal but pay the price knowing that the work is worth seeing and if I don’t bring them, then no one else will. The smaller audience appreciates the opportunity no less than the larger one. Unfortunately, that idealism may have to be indulged slightly less often in favor of discerning whether there are local/regional performers who have the quality but haven’t had the opportunity to be seen.

Outside of my uncertainty about such groups existing, one concern I have is that if I don’t set my schedule early, I will have to really control what dates I rent out. We have a fairly strong facility rental program and can have most of the year rented out almost immediately after releasing the dates we don’t intend to use.

I would most certainly make more money renting instead of presenting on those same dates but I don’t want to reduce our offerings even in these financially tenuous times. I believe we would lose momentum with our community. While precious few seem to have any loyalty to us, I suspect their numbers are greater than we imagine. There is also the issue of slipping out of the collective consciousness if there are fewer mentions of us in the media.

So for the next few months I am going to be doing a lot of pondering, talking and consulting with people on our direction. There is no option before me that I want to fully commit to –fully a rental house, fully produce local performers–but the fiscal realities before me are likely to mean exploring these options to some degree.

Overhaul The Arts And Install New Standards

by

Couple weeks back I mentioned I wanted to explore the idea of greater standards and training for administrators and board members Numa Saisselin floated in his “Arts Presenting Is Dead” piece. As one might imagine, from the number of times I have cited it, I was pleased to see Saisselin cite the Conversations With The Field study Neill Roan did for APAP which noted learning was not valued in the arts presenting field.

Saisselin feels that service organizations like APAP need to be more aggressive about identifying and contacting new entrants to the field and providing them with the basic information they will need even if the new presenter is not a member of their organization.

Just as the model of a modern presenting organization is shifting towards earned income, and on the fundraising side, earned income tactics, the model of a service organization should be shifting away from the all-access or no-access membership model, and towards an aggressive recruiting model that incorporates at least some free exchange of information.

While I agree that any organization/company/corporation is better served by actively engaging its constituencies, given the ease with which small groups can enter the field and operate on a limited basis, I am not sure how easy it might be find and identify these entities. I suppose they could start by looking through the records of where artists have recently performed in trade magazines and websites like Pollstar.

He likewise suggests that individuals avail themselves of free sources of information – “For example, Musical America, Celebrity Access and Billboard Magazine all publish free weekly newsletters by email. Countless fundraising, accounting and management firms publish their own newsletters, which often include lengthy and useful papers and articles.”

He bemoans the dearth of arts management training programs in higher education but seems to acknowledge that many working professionals don’t have the time to return to school for training. Saisselin suggests a certification system similar to one developed by the International Association of Assembly Managers (IAAM). I took a look at their website and it seems to be a pretty rigorous set of requirements to obtain various certifications.

Arts service agencies might do well to consider developing something similar. They have the example of the IAAM program to use as a type of template given the overlap in a number of areas. They also have the benefit of being able to consult with the existing arts management programs about the training they provide. In turn they can suggest what college students should be taught if they want to be employed. While the colleges may not be able to host classes for the busy arts professionals, they might prove good regional testing sites on weekends.

The observation Saisselin made that most interested me because I hadn’t encountered it before was in regard to board training. He makes some common observations about how poorly board members understand and are educated as to their duties. Then he relates an anecdote about a time when he and a friend were considering leaving their jobs. The friend worked for a radio station and had a fairly constructive conversation with a supervisor who understood the desire to move on and discussed the pros and cons of doing so.

Saisselin’s board was hurt that he was considering moving on and while he stayed, the dynamics between the board and himself were strained.

“….the component that is pertinent to this discussion is this: my friend’s boss was straightforward in the way he dealt with this scenario, because he worked in the same field she did, and he understood first hand why she was thinking about making a move. My board, on the other hand, with no career experience of their own in the field, responded the only way that they could: emotionally.

There is a critical weakness at the executive level of the nonprofit arts field: board members join a company at the very top of the organizational chart, but more often than not they have little or no experience in the field themselves as working professionals. Experienced board members may have vast knowledge about being a board member, but there is no way for them to personally understand the issues that professional staff members must be concerned about on a daily basis, or when thinking about their own lives and career. A board member’s personal commitment may run deep, and a paid staff member’s personal commitment may run just as deep, but the motivations of each for being involved in an organization in the first place, and for sustaining that involvement, are very different.”

Now my perception is that appointments to for profit boards aren’t necessarily made with people in the same field. Though there may be more uniformity in the way boards of widget manufacturers and banks operate than one of them and a non-profit board. The whole practice of placing inexperienced people at the top of an organizational structure may actually be flawed regardless of industry.

An emotional reaction may not be something that non profit organizations can escape. A year ago I talked about how the high emotional satisfaction people experience working in the arts may inhibit their desire to improve themselves. Boards involved with non profits may be so invested in the organization’s cause, it might be difficult to favor a rational reaction over an emotional one.

Frankly, I think other employees are likely to feel betrayed by a fellow who is letting the cause down or, given the generally poor pay and working conditions, escaping. Board members are probably more likely to be uniformly hurt than seasoned colleagues but I don’t think all bosses will be as supportive as Saisselin’s friend’s.

Saisselin extends his idea of insuring quality to the industry as a whole citing the example of the regional accrediting bodies which set the standards for institutions of higher learning. I get a little nervous at this suggestion. I am all for increasing the quality of arts organizations. I don’t know if formal accreditation is the way to go. Such a process is incredibly time consuming and diverts a lot of resources. For colleges, loss of accreditation means, among other things, loss of access to funding sources. I would be afraid that arts organizations that do good work would lose out on grants and foundation support because they didn’t have the wherewithal to complete an accreditation process. One of the biggest complaints people have about charities is the high percentage of their donation that goes toward administrative overhead. Accreditation process has to be incredibly well thought out to avoid this situation.

All this being said, Saisselin mentions that the granting process constitutes a de facto peer review system but that it is a binary result. You are either funded or not.

Beyond funding an application, or not, and in some cases providing applicants with a written summary of the panel’s comments, there are no “next steps” to assist organizations that don’t measure up, and the field at large desperately needs to take those next steps to strengthen the field at large.

There is no avoiding the fact that meeting greater standards requires increased effort above what is already being done. And there is no guarantee that meeting those standards will lead to greater organizational success. It is painfully clear to many in the entertainment industry that high quality product doesn’t necessarily draw a larger audience.

If there is an industry wide push for higher standards it is certain there will be instances of greater efficiencies, more effective leadership, constructive partnerships and more united advocacy efforts. But none of it is guaranteed to happen to you the individual or to your organization. In fact, the obscene inefficiency of your company may be revealed in the course of this movement putting you out of a job.

So what is your motivation as a belabored arts professional to join an effort that provides no surety of things improving for you? Well, that is about the same promise you had when you made the decision to devote your life to the equally abstract concept of artistic excellence.

It Might Not Be Entirely Dead Yet

by

The president of my consortium went to a Western Arts Federation meeting and returned with some materials for the membership to read. One of the more provocative pieces was written by Numa C. Saisselin, Executive Director at the Count Basie Theatre entitled “Arts Presenting Is Dead.” (Full disclosure, I once interviewed with Numa for a job at the Count Basie.) Unfortunately, the document isn’t online. I would have to make some inquiries to get permission to store it on my blog.

Numa’s basic premise about presenting being dead is that the practice of offering “serious work” like “theatre, dance, classical music, and maybe the occasional folk singer” and being successful focused on doing only that is no longer viable. What has eroded this situation are elements of which we are all generally aware: The low barriers to entry of the presenting field means there are more people doing it in the general vicinity; competition comes not only from other performing arts organizations, but sporting events, television, computers; costs are going up but earned income, drop in corporate support and other economic factors make it difficult for presenters to break even; organizations aren’t doing new things to attract new audiences; “every market is different, but by and large we all compete for the same programs” and “every market is different, but by and large we all employ the same generic marketing strategies.”

Saisselin does a good job tracing the direction things have been headed and giving concrete examples of how his organization has faced each of these essential areas. The way he has found success is to become more nimble in his programming focusing less on establishing a concrete season for people to subscribe to and more on taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves in the short term and then communicating these new developments with his mailing lists. While they take the long view on some things, he likens his approach to that of a concert promoter rather than the traditional definition of a presenter.

He notes this approach may not work, and should not work, for everyone given that every market is different. He also acknowledges that his organization has to ask granting entities to have faith in them since they don’t have a concrete idea about what they may do with the money at the time of application.

One of the benefits of his approach is that it allows him to take advantage of opportunities where an agent is offering an artist at a lower price in order to keep them busy between performances. Saisselin feels that presenters need to move even beyond this and educate themselves more about artistic fees rather than blindly accepting what is asked. There are databases of artists performances all over the country that can allow you to compare yourself to similar communities to get an idea of what attendance was like and what ticket price was charged.

Now I know none of this sounds terribly provocative. I included most of this narration so you could get a general idea where Saisselin was coming from. What I am told has quite a few people up in arms and calling him irresponsible for suggesting is that presenters be able to cancel a performer 30 days out.

If the artist can cancel a date on 30 days notice to take a more important gig on a TV show, a feature film, or in a Broadway production; or a more lucrative gig in Atlantic City, Las Vegas, Reno or Tahoe; or in some cases for any reason, then the presenter should have the option of canceling on 30 days notice if ticket sales do not warrant proceeding. If the artist has the option of canceling to enhance their overall career or make more money, then the presenter should have the option of canceling if it’s going to lose money, or at least if it’s going to lose a lot of money.

From the artist’s and management’s perspective, not allowing presenters a cancellation option protects the artist from bad presenters. In other words, if the presenter does not do their job, the artist should not suffer, and that makes sense. But if the presenter does do its job, and tickets still do not sell, artists, agents and managers should accept at least a measure of responsibility. If we’re really all in this together, we should share the pain as well as the rewards.

He notes there is already an unofficial process one can follow to achieve this that generally ends up with the presenter paying 50% of the artist fee as a cancellation penalty. He suggests making it a formal part of contracts. While the presenter will still realize a loss, it won’t be a debilitating one

The presenter would be required to jump through some hoops to make such a request. When booking an artist, the presenter would have to submit a marketing plan, and satisfy management that the plan is reasonable, and has worked in the past. When making a cancellation request, the presenter would have to document that they had followed through on the marketing plan, without achieving the desired results…

…Artists would not be forced to play for half empty (or less) houses to collect their check, but in the event of a cancellation would still be fairly compensated for reserving the performance date. Agents and managers would be saved from having their artist develop a reputation as a box office loser, and would have the opportunity to revisit and revise their own strategies, perhaps getting their artist into smaller rooms, and building or rebuilding their artist’s career in another way. Presenters would be saved from throwing good money after bad when they already know a show is not selling.

He goes on to make some good points about improving standards for arts managers and boards of directors which I hope to address in later entries. For now I just wanted to float this idea. I am not quite sure how I feel about it. Assuming the practice moved in this direction either through active efforts of presenters or by default as tough economic times make the unspoken procedures into the standard, is it a direction we want to head?

It is easy to get angry at ever increasing fees and being left in the lurch by artists and talk about leveling the field in the abstract. There can be some unwanted repercussions though. I have been to the booking conferences and there the dynamic is one where the presenters have all the power. Artists and agents complain that presenters won’t acknowledge them or meet their eyes as they pass. I suppose if more people moved to act as promoters as Saisselin has, then fewer arrangements will be made at conferences and more will be made as a result of emails and YouTube videos. Not to imply artist cancellations for a better gig is revenge for the conference snub, but maybe it will be good if that uncomfortable vibe was removed from the equation.

My concern is that the money factor becomes a larger issue and emerging artists get further marginalized if 30 day cancellations become standard. Is an agent or manager really going to invest time in cultivating someone who is yielding them a percentage of 50% fee or are they going to go with the known quantity that dependably fills seats?

Certainly, the internet allows people to promote themselves fairly well so they don’t have to rely on an agent. For those like me who already get a constant stream of artist availability emails, more virtually unknowns adding themselves to the mix only makes things more difficult. As evil as agents may be made out to be, the good ones develop relationships with you that enable them to provide appropriate advice to presenters. Saisselin mentions his appreciation for an agent that invested years in a relationship with him before he actually booked an artist.

One road to success I can see is if the economy gets so bad that presenters turn their attention to seeking out low cost regional and local performers. Sasselin mentions how the record single went out of vogue only to come back again thanks to the iPod. Perhaps the impresario will make a return of sorts as people with theatre facilities turn their attention to cultivating the careers of regional artists as agents drop them.

Sasselin’s proposal is certainly something to consider in some form or another in order to relieve the pressure on presenters. I don’t think it can be applied in as straightforward a manner as he suggests.

**One thing that did occur to me as I was writing is that it would be great for the small touring artist if someone would create a piece of online software that integrated communications, scheduling and maps. That way a person could email, IM, etc about a gig, have the mapping feature tell them if it is actually reasonable to drive/fly that distance in the time allotted between gigs and then place it in a schedule they can access while on the road. Heck, if it could suggest flights, car rental places and hotels, that would be great too. (Except I imagine the top suggestions would be positioned there by paid advertising and may not be the most affordable for our struggling artist.)**

Fought The Board and The Board Won

by

With Drew McManus’ post about Scorched Earth Governance today, I thought I would share my own tale of overbearing boards. My story isn’t as extreme as anything Drew mentioned but it does illustrate boards micromanaging, perhaps to the detriment of the organization. I haven’t told this story before out of respect for the Executive Director who had to continue working with the board. About three weeks ago, I noticed the ED position was being advertised and upon further checking discovered the ED had moved on to fresher fields.

When I write that decisions were made “perhaps to the detriment of the organization,” it is because this involves a job for which I was interviewing. Obviously I can’t make an objective judgment about whether the person who got the job was better for the position. This isn’t a disgruntled story about how poorly I was treated. It was only because the experience was so strange that I felt the need to record notes on it. I actually felt highly complimented and valued by the whole situation. It is the Executive Director who was probably came away with the worst of it.

A number of years back I had interviewed for a General Director position at an arts center. The position required that I handle a lot of the financial aspects of the center. It also required that I have a great deal of involvement in operations of an annual festival and troubleshoot problems that arose with classes and artist residencies. I would be the first person called in the middle of the night.

After the interview, I pretty much felt that I had won over the staff but wasn’t sure about the Executive Director or the Board. Eventually, I got a call from the Executive Director that said exactly that. Then he added that while he had gone into the interview looking for someone different, as he reviewed my application, read my blog and spoke to my references, he realized he had initially been looking for someone like himself when I was clearly the only candidate suited for the job.

So I was elated that my interview, my references and best of all, my blog had come together to make such a strong case for me –and that the guy I am going to be working for is thoughtful enough to examine and reevaluate his expectations.

As the Executive Director continued, the complicating factor emerged. The board wanted someone who was more of an accountant and had reservations about me. He called me so he could go into a meeting the next day with responses to their concerns and fight for me as top candidate. He felt that the board members who had called my references were twisting what the references said around to make unwarranted assumptions about me. They told him if he hired me, his fate would be connected with mine.

This had a quite a chilling effect on my enthusiasm. I mean, I was even more flattered than before that someone believed in me so much that he was willing to put his own employment on the line. As much as I wanted to believe that once on the job I would win the board over by exhibiting my excellence, I wasn’t terribly keen on having people rooting for me to fail before I started.

In the end though, he found that the power unilaterally hire a subordinate was taken out of his hands as the board insisted on the person who was predominantly an accountant. The ED said the whole situation cost him a great deal politically. I actually don’t know how much longer he lasted. It has been a few years so the recent job ad could well be to replace his replacement.

It was just a very strange situation. I had never heard of a board involving themselves so intimately in hiring a person who wouldn’t be answering to them. The position didn’t set organizational policy and direction, nor did it have the ability to act autonomously. The place already had a book keeper so proficiency in keeping accounts wasn’t a high priority. Assembling and interpreting financial statements was important but I had years of experience doing so at that point.

It is the Executive Director who bears responsibility for the staff that is hired. Unless they are incredibly negligent in monitoring and disciplining employees, the ED’s job shouldn’t necessarily be directly in jeopardy with every new hire.

I spoke privately with a few people about the whole situation. The general sentiment was that the board needed better instruction about what its role in the organization was. While a board generally makes decisions about new member recruitment rather than the executive director, the ED had a role to play in educating and steering the board in its development.

So often the concern is that a board is too disengaged, unaware of the activities of the organization and remiss in the exercise of its oversight and fiduciary responsibilities. This board seemed hyper-engaged, at least in relation to this particular function. I suspect my experience was not an aberration but rather a symptom of an unhealthy dynamic between the board and the executive director. Just as the executive director saw my skills as complementary to his, since this was a newly created position, I wonder if the board’s agenda was to fill in the places in which they felt the Executive Director was lacking.

Programming Comfort Food

by

I attended the season planning meeting of my block booking consortium today. As I suspected, many projects which would have been quickly picked up by the membership in recent years were deferred to other years because of financial concerns. One partner is going into a major retrenchment mode reducing their events from 10 to three or four. I left the meeting with fewer details solidified than in the past, in part because there were fewer tours available to collaborate on. There are a few dangling possibilities that I can pursue but I will have to work much hard to build a tour working on people individually than I would have in the meeting.

The situation was expressed best by one of the members. She spoke about her audiences orienting on “comfort food” rather than experimenting with new fare. While she isn’t moving toward more pop culture acts, many of the performers she is looking at have performed at her venue before or are similar enough to previous artists to provide audiences with a familiar reference point. Because of this approach, even though economics are driving so many decisions, she actually turned down the opportunity to present a less expensive, lesser known act that would be more intellectually challenging in favor of a much more expensive, better known one.

There were a couple positive outcomes to the meeting. A board member flew over with the director of his organization in an attempt to understand how the consortium worked. When a board member is motivated by financial uncertainty to involve themselves in some aspect of operations, it can be a iffy proposition. Negative judgments made after a short exposure to an unfamiliar process can be unhealthy for an organization. In this case, it was a positive experience all around because the board member asked a lot of questions and seemed to recognize that the problems they were facing were widespread and not particular to them or due to missteps by the director.

That was the second positive outcome of the meeting. For the first time since I have been a member of the consortium, people actually took the time to talk about a number of subjects. The people who attended the Arts Presenters conference last month spoke about the Marketing Segmentation Study Alan Brown from Wolf Brown spoke on. I was pleased, of course, since I am a believer in arts people taking the time to stay abreast of recent literature and generally stay informed.

There was also discussion of different strategies people are using in pricing, marketing and sponsorship. I took quite a few notes. The one idea I couldn’t believe I hadn’t thought of was providing show sponsors with the option of either having a full page ad in the program book or donating the space to a non-profit. That is a win all around since the sponsor gets points with both the theatre and another non-profit and gets to write off more of the sponsorship as a donation since they didn’t get the value of the ad space. The theatre gets the financial support and scores a few points with the non-profit and its supporters. The other non-profit gets increased exposure.

Actors Locally

by

About a year ago I started thinking about doing a project that involved our organization’s immediate artistic community, artists throughout the county and as much of the public at large as we might be able to entice into becoming involved. Bringing different artists who don’t normally work together is one goal. Second, I was thinking that as much as I talk about how groups should offer audiences alternatives to sitting passively in a dark room, I should really put my money where my mouth is. I would also like to break down barriers members of the general public have about their artistic abilities.

When I originally began considering this I was thinking of bringing out an artist who was well-practiced at taking volunteers with little or no experience and producing a show in two days. My thought was to have a site specific show developed over the course of a week to ten days and then have a final performance. The assistant theatre manager suggested a local artist who could spearhead the same sort of effort. Suddenly the necessity of having someone who had experience putting a show together in a short time was less relevant.

It also has the benefit of being less expensive since I don’t have to house, transport and feed guest artists. Ultimately, I may end up spending the same amount of money, but it will be over a longer period of time which will hopefully allow a greater number of people to be involved.

I didn’t really plan it this way, but I think I may be presenting more local artists in the near future. I suspect when I attend my consortium meeting next week, I am going to find that my partners are really scaling back their activities. I will probably have fewer opportunities to partner with them due to scheduling conflicts and differences in our respective audiences’ interests. Buying local won’t be sustainable over the long term because there are few local artists I can present that people can’t see more frequently closer to the city core and drink alcohol while they are doing so. The strength I have is an ability, limited as it may be, to encourage and cultivate some new works.

None of the three artists I have spoken with over the last month about developing performances are new acquaintances. We have had relationships over the last couple years and we have reached a point where broaching the possibility of collaboration was logical. The tough economic times weren’t really a motivation. I haven’t suddenly decided to make due with the local talent because it has become tougher to bring people in from afar.

Anyway, I spoke with the artist today and she was just thrilled by the prospect. I could see the wheels beginning to turn inside her head. I presented the whole concept to her as pretty open ended. I know who I want to have involved, but until we have a core idea I can’t go convince them to sign on. As we spoke today, we realized we can really expand this project out a little bit. There is a possibility to have the produce of workshops, continuing ed courses and street fair craft projects created over the course of a year integrated into the final performance. Some possible workshops might even be designed to begin eroding anxiety and make people comfortable with expressing themselves with the aim of involving them in the final effort.

For example, we talked about mask making classes/workshops. Masks can be fun to make and wearing them allows people to be less self conscious. The artist related a story of how she brought a group of visual artists together to help her with a performance piece and they all protested they weren’t performers. Then they began to tentatively approach the masks and play with them. By the end of two hours the biggest problem was that people couldn’t decide which of the characters they had created for the masks to use in the performance.

Right now I am pretty optimistic about the future of the project even though I don’t know when it might start or finish. The woman with whom I spoke isn’t letting any moss grow on her and wants to get right to planning. We have a meeting on Thursday to look at possible locations around the grounds. I intend to post on the progress we make in the planning and implementation of our little scheme and share some of the challenges we face so that others might avoid them.

Interesting Thoughts From Other Places

by

Read some good stuff today on two blogs that really can’t be improved upon by any commentary I can offer so read on—

The Nonprofiteer had some sage advice in a recent entry regarding recruiting people to fill volunteer roles be it a board member or ticket taker — recruit in pairs.

The two-by-two recommendation is most often made about Board members, and specifically about minority Board members: don’t ask someone to be the only African-American or the only woman in the room. But it’s equally true of any Board recruit, or in fact of any volunteer: bring in 1 person, and you’ve got a 50% shot at keeping him/her. Bring in 2, and you’ve got an 80% shot at keeping them both.

Why? Because misery loves company, and being a newcomer/outsider is always misery. And because unless your Board or volunteer program is truly astonishing, anyone observing it from the outside will think it could use a lot of improvement. The prospect of trying to improve something unaided is usually daunting to the point of not bothering.

Seems easier to do with board members who tend to be actively recruited as opposed to volunteers for other areas which are often self-selected. You don’t want to turn someone away simply because no one else offered their services this week. It is possible though to orient people in pairs or small groups to facilitate bonding among them. If the 80% retention stat is correct, it seems prudent to arrange the situation so people’s initial volunteer encounters are in multiples.

Over at Producer’s Perspective, Ken Davenport relates an answer Sandy Block of Sernio Coyne gave to the question about why producers attempt to mount Broadway productions given the enormous challenges. Block stops the class in which the question was asked and queries those attending how many remember the first movie they saw and then how many can name the first Broadway show they saw. Few people raised their hands at the first question but everyone raised their hands at the second.

Says Davenport:

There’s a highly emotional experience connected with Broadway; a passion that can be turned into profit . . . Now the real question is, how can we capitalize on that?

Davenport then asks his readers to take Sandy Block’s survey and record the first movie and first Broadway show they saw in the comments section of the entry. If you remember, go on over and write it in.

Finding Some Direction In Tough Times

by

Last week I participated in a conference call sponsored by APAP on the impact of the economy on the presenting field. The call was about an 75-90 minutes long and covered a fair bit of ground. They were supposed to post an audio file of the call this week but haven’t yet. Once they do, I will link to it. As you might imagine, there is quite a bit of concern about the topic. So much so that the opening plenary speaker at the conference will be an economist who will speak on how the current crisis came to be.

A lot of the participants were looking for guidance on possible solutions and ways to cope with the stresses they were feeling. There was a lot of constructive advice given but one of the earliest caveats issued was to resist making decisions that might provide short term relief but damage your organization’s reputation and goodwill over the long term. One example given was trying to dissolve contracts instead of trying to find areas to negotiate costs down.

Word gets around the industry so breaking a contract with one agent/artist can have repercussions for your organization very quickly. In the past month, I have conversations with three people who have moved to a different employer. If I had had poor relationships with any one of their former employers in the past year, word would have easily spread to take care in dealings with me.

Among the suggestions for coping with the current economic situation were examples that many arts organizations are now looking at collaborating, partnering or just plain merging operations. Some are looking at increasing their family programming since people are looking to do things closer to home. Someone on the call suggested that one of the great values of the arts is that, properly positioned, it can help communities deal with tough times and even build communities with others who are having a similarly tough time.

One term that kept coming up in the discussion was Porter’s Five Forces. (or Wikipedia entry) I could, and probably will, do an entirely separate entry on how this applies to the arts. If you have the time to read it, it will put some of the concepts brought up in the conference call in context.

One of the suggestions that was made was to examine the problems your organization has and determine if they really have their origin in the economic problems of if they are pre-existing. Were shifts in local demographics, values and preferences already leaving your organization behind? Was there another organization that had entered the market that was doing what you do, only better?

Something to look at is refocusing on the core competencies of your organization. By which the speaker meant, the elements that were central to what the public valued about your organization. The speaker (sorry, tough to keep track of people on a conference call) reiterated the idea that given another organization might now be doing a better job than you, it might be time to shift your focus.

Someone emailed in a question for the panel about how you innovate in times when there aren’t a lot of funds to support such activities. The answer that was given was to find a new path to achieve the mission. Shift the organization’s pathway away from business as usual. One should be prepared to question the underlying assumptions that you have about every aspect of the business from what your audience and community values to the effectiveness of the business model and organizational structure.

This strikes me as requiring a lot of bravery and resolve. With all the problems that an economic down turn brings, do you really have the time to devote to effecting this sort of change? Though frankly, in good times, do you really have the incentive to do so? In better times, you want to avoid the type of radical changes that may send you into a death spiral. You also have so many things to point at that are apparently working there is no need to closely examine the underlying assumptions.

Addressing other portions of the conference call will have to wait until they post the audio. The rest of my notes contain semi-cryptic messages to review parts of the session whose interesting details came too quickly for my note taking abilities. I am pleased that APAP has taken steps to inform and educated its constituency.

More Manufacturing Your Worst Enemy

by

As the title of the entry implies, I did a little more digging on the subject I covered in my last entry. The author of the story I originally quoted, Kaihan Krippendorff, mentioned that he would be writing about his interview with ePrize founder, Josh Linkner, over the course of a week so I sought out the other entries. In one of the entries, Krippendorff links to the audio of his interview.

There were a couple things of note. First was a promotional service (starting around 23:00) he designed to be affordable and accessible to the owner of “Jimmy’s Pizza Shop.” ePrize’s clients essentially pool their money in order to syndicate participation in the pool drawing of promotional prizes. Presumably, you can’t promise a Ford truck if you aren’t investing as much money as Coke does (or maybe you can, I won’t make any claim of being an expert on the business model.) The small business owner can log on and guided by a web based program, design their own promotion in about 15 minutes and have it immediately go live. The drawing is legal in all 50 states, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

If it is as easy as Linkner says, this could be a great resource for arts organizations. You could offer subscriber and employee rewards and perhaps even show related promotions.

Back on the topic of their invented rival, Slither, Linkner verifies that my suspicion of Krippendorff taking poetic license was completely unfounded. Slither did indeed “invade” the company to commit sabotage and espionage (starts around 33:00).

There were some things said in the interview which expound on the concept of how useful an invented enemy can be to a business. One benefit to corporate culture Linkner cites is that it allows open conversation that can circumvent office politics. Normally, he says, one might be hesitant to suggest that a policy is flawed for fear they will insult the person who created it. In a meeting Linkner says he may ask how Slither approaches a problem or to talk about the one thing a Slither counterpart does better than him/her. This allows conversations about weak spots in the organization’s processes and policies and how to improve rather than criticizing something specifically and marking it for elimination.

Prepare for Feast in Famine

by

As much as I talk about what a bad turn things have taken of late, I do want to advocate cautious optimism unless you are in immediate danger of closing your doors. This may be a period of retrenchment and delaying activities, but it probably is not good to abandon long term plans entirely.

For one thing, your supporters may be more optimistic and energetic than you give them credit for. As you may remember, I am providing feedback on the design and construction of a performing arts center in Bellevue, WA. Within weeks of our group site visit, everything really went to hell on Wall Street with Lehman Brothers and many banks failing in the space of a week or two. I was praying that the finances of those who supported the performing arts center construction weren’t too entangled in these troubles. My fear was that the next email we got from the arts center administration was that they decided to scale back given the financial woes.

I was quite pleased when the next email brought news that everyone was excited by suggestions that came out of the site visit and that the plans were getting a little more ambitious. Around the same time, the local Indian community, undeterred by the emerging economic problems announced their intent to raise $1 million and were already $400,000 along. Last month, another support group held a benefit that raised $450,000. Given that the same event in 2007 raised $320,000, staying ambitious and optimistic in a faltering economy seems to have yielded some results.

Now I don’t expect everyone will realize a $130,000 gain by thinking positive. I am sure a lot of ground work was required over the intervening year to realize that sort of success. It’s the ground work, relationship building and planning that you can’t allow to falter if you decide to put activities on hold. In my theatre we are planning for a renovation. We know the renovation is going to be further off than it was last year but we are still moving ahead assessing the work that needs to be done. When things turn around and money becomes available, we want to be ready with a plan. Not having a plan at the time might mean getting passed over for another budget cycle or two.

Even if you aren’t building something physical, you can use the time to meet key decision makers to gauge what their agendas are so you can make effective proposals when they are more open to receiving them. It is also the time to research and learn new theories related to your long term plans. True, arts leaders have little time to engage in research as it is. The necessity of putting action on hold allows you to research periodically over a longer interval than trying to cram it into a short gap before implementation. Or even worse, neglecting to be up on current practices and theories while executing a program.

Certainly tough times bring their own problems which displace our ability to engage in any of these practices. Yet, we do have the ability to be constructive even as we may choose to defer construction.

NB-Since this entry first appeared, I have corrected my math 😛

Fear Of The Fundraiser

by

Hat tip to Seth Godin who reproduced Sasha Dichter’s Manifesto in Defense of Raising Money which begins “I’m sick of apologizing for being in charge of raising money.”

It seems to me a must read for anyone who is in the position of raising money which includes pretty much everyone in an organization since theoretically everyone must be part of the organization’s narrative. As you read, don’t get side tracked with thoughts about how his cause is so much more worthy of donations than your own. There are many elements that contribute to personal and societal health.

Dichter basically feels people approach fund raising from the wrong perspective seeing it as a chore rather than an opportunity to evangelize about the change you want to effect. For me the third point he makes after asking why people are so afraid to ask for money seems the most salient.

“…wealth is associated with power, and not having wealth can feel like not having power. So going to someone who has money and saying, “You have the resources, please give some of them to me” doesn’t feel like a conversation between equals.

How about this instead: “You are incredibly good at making money. I’m incredibly good at making change. The change I want to make in the world, unfortunately, does not itself generate much money. But man oh man does it make change. It’s a hugely important change. And what I know about making this change is as good and as important as what you know about making money. So let’s divide and conquer – you keep on making money, I’ll keep on making change. And if you can lend some of your smarts to the change I’m trying to make, well that’s even better. But most of the time, we both keep on doing what we’re best at, and if we keep on working together the world will be a better place.”

One of the other points Dichter makes is that storytelling is more a skill than a talent and I think communicating the sentiment in an effective manner would take cultivated skills. There are already organizations using this approach except they are saying, you make money, you keep giving me the money and don’t pry too much about what I am doing with it.

It occurs to me that if you are approaching fund raising as evangelizing rather than as a necessary evil, you aren’t waiting for people to ask but rather reporting back before being asked. I am certainly in a better mood when I am writing to our donors about our successes than I am filling out the final report forms for a foundation. The format of the first allows you to tell people what events you perceive as progress. The format of the second forces you to try to recast your success according the the criteria by which the foundation is measuring progress. Something tends to get squeezed and lost when you try to stuff your excitement into the box provided.

If The Pudding Is Really That Good, Why Don’t They Serve It?

by

As corporate blogs go, I sort of like Southwest Airline’s. They do a pretty good job covering all sorts of topics from opening new facilities and showing pictures of their mechanics performing maintenance on the their aircraft to discussing the impact of hurricane’s on their operations. Of course, being Southwest they also indulge in goofy pursuits like sharing their grandmother’s banana pudding recipes.

I think the blog is pretty effective for them as a forum for communicating information about their company and answering customer questions about the choices they make.

One thing they did recently which I thought could be especially effective for arts organizations is have an entry and podcast on how to work for the company and what to expect once you apply. (podcast doesn’t have permalinks so you’ll have to find the 9/24/08 episode.) They talk about all the crazy stuff people did to get noticed but also note how long it took some of these people to get hired given that they receive hundreds of thousands of applications every year.

Arts organizations taking a page from their book could talk about what people might expect working for the organization and what the place would expect of an applicant. This could help strengthen and diversify the applicant pool. I am partially thinking back to comments Andrew Taylor made last January about how arts organizations shouldn’t discount people simply because they don’t possess skills that have an exact one to one correlation to the job description they wrote. It is great to hire true believers who have already invested their hearts in your industry but in the long run more dispassionate new blood might lead to a healthier situation.

If you don’t have the resources to maintain a running blog or podcast, it would probably still be beneficial to have a one or two recorded conversations with people talking about their experiences with the company posted in the Human Resources portion of your website. The emotion transmitted in a voice is certainly compelling than a lengthy text account of the same information.

Make Those Wall Street Bums Work For Us!

by

Fractured Atlas’ Adam Huttler posted about the disincentives inherent to the traditional non-profit model partially in relation to the fall of so many financial institutions over the last few weeks.

I’ve often argued that the traditional non-profit model discourages necessary risk-taking. It does this for a few reasons:

1) Employees can’t own stock, so they don’t benefit from financial success. Yet they’re still vulnerable to financial failures (i.e. they can lose their jobs or suffer career setbacks). To a lesser extent, the same is true for non-profit Board members. When someone’s got no stake in the upside but is still exposed on the downside, the rational response is extreme conservatism.

2) The culture of the non-profit sector is such that managers go to absurd, herculean efforts to avoid admitting failure, mostly in an effort not to embarrass themselves in front of funders.

3) Non-profit organizations are chronically under-capitalized. By failing to build reserves or hoard surpluses, we end up in a situation where each budget is a tightrope. A single serious misstep is enough to pose an existential threat to the organization.

He goes on to talk about how free market enterprise incentivizes excessive risk taking in the for-profit industry and lists the form this takes. Huttler notes that while regulation can help keep the activities of for-profits from becoming too risky, you can’t make for profits engage in riskier behavior. However, he feels that if the relationship with funders could be changed, risk aversion can be mitigated to a degree.

His observations paint behavior of for and not-for profits as two sides of the same coin. For profits have a short term view because they are trying to burnish their quarterly reports for the sake of enhancing earnings. Not for profits take a short term view because their funding only covers a limited period. Given the necessity to continue to seek funding, the organization has to frequently reinvent parts of itself to conform with grant opportunities.

What Huttler suggest as a solution seems very close to what the Independent Sector proposed a few years ago. The Independent Sector suggested that foundations engage in long term core support of organizations rather than program support. They also suggested foundations develop a uniform application and reporting procedure so that organizations weren’t devoting so much time and energy on applications and reporting. (The entry I link to is one I am particularly proud of so take a look! Not to mention that the issue is more complicated than I have presented here.)

Huttler notes that it is difficult to provide performance incentives on par with the for profit world given IRS rules preventing revenue sharing. He mentions that Fractured Atlas provides performance based group bonuses which are apparently legal and I am sure sound like a good idea to most non-profit employees.

One of my initial thoughts upon reading Huttler’s first point about how non-profit employees face all the risk and none of the profit-sharing reward that for profit employees do, was that this group was motivated by factors other than financial. I am glad he acknowledged that near the end of the entry though I assumed he understood this even if he never mentioned it. But as I read the entry I reached the same conclusion he did–it can be tough to translate this non-monetary motivation into risk taking.

One of the first things that popped into my mind was that attempting this could actually lead to the pursuit of grants that didn’t really align with the organizational mission. A person is enthusiastic about serving X community and comes to the leadership with a grant supporting that very thing. But is it really in the organization’s best interest? Do they really want to continue the program past the grant period? Will there be anyone to continue it after the person leaves? It is easy to get caught up in the enthusiasm of a person for a clearly worthy cause when your organization is fueled more by coffee and enthusiasm than money. Engaging an employee’s interests can reward them for all their hard work when there isn’t much else with which to reward them. But you have to weight that against the long term interests of the company.

Yet it is easy to dismiss the suggestion of a really risky venture that would be in the long term best interest of the organization based on the risk alone. A fantastic failure as a result of risk taking won’t be in the interests of the company if it closes or most everyone gets laid off. Engaging an employee’s passion when there is money readily available from a foundation looks like the sane choice even if the program it funds probably won’t exist in 3 years–at least the organization itself will.

Not all risks are directly related to finances, of course. Just as every passion doesn’t necessarily require grant funding. An employee might be interested in cultivating an online community on behalf of the organization employing software that is available for free. All you have to do is allow them a couple hours a week to work on it. But if an incident arises that causes your organization to become an object of derision online and spills over to the local print and broadcast media, that can be a huge problem for you. But if your employee manages to tap into the interests of a bunch of influential 20 or 30somethings, the effort could be rewarding for you, your employee and your new supporters. (Though this win-win-win situation could be detrimental if the established supporters feel the organizational character has changed for the worse. That is the risk you have hopefully anticipated and prepared for.)

Ultimately though this whole issue leaves me wondering if there isn’t a better way than the non-profit model. Is there someway that allows employees to share in the success of the organization and have their non-monetary motivations engaged as well? Given the complex financial instruments constructed by the investment firms that got the country into its current financial crisis, I guarantee the brain power to design a way to finance such an organization exists (both constructively and legally, of course). There is simply has been no motivation for them to turn their minds to constructing such an opportunity. Perhaps the non-profit world at large should push to have these people prosecuted for criminal malfeasance and negligence and then advocate that they be sentenced to community service creating a proposal for such a funding scheme.

Activity Breeds Excitement

by

We had a thank you luncheon/orientation for our volunteers this past weekend. In the past we have had it in the Spring but the schedule last spring was replete with conflicts so we chose this Fall to hold the event. In some respects, it was a better choice. Because we held the thank you lunch on the same day as the orientation, new volunteers got to meet experienced people prior to an event giving them an introduction to a person who can provide guidance during performances. Also, it can’t hurt to feed your volunteers before they actually do something for you.

A rule we have set for ourselves with our volunteer luncheons is to make sure there is something going on in the building when we are having it. Even though the volunteers see the building in action all the time, we want to make sure there is a sense of vibrancy and purpose, albeit subdued, while they are around. What is tricky about scheduling things this way is that most of the time we have something going on, we need the volunteers there to work. In previous years we have held the luncheon before events that only required a few volunteers like the annual classical and folk guitar concert. Some of the volunteers would have to leave a half hour early to prepare for the event but most could continue to hang out or go see the concert for free.

This year we did things differently and held the event prior to auditions for the Fall drama. There is nothing like the nervous energy of auditioners to fill a building with a sense of excitement. We scheduled our event to end just as the staff was setting up the theatre for the second day of auditions. There wasn’t any overlap on space since the actors entered through the backstage door and we held our lunch in the front lobby. (Another little hook for the event. Since we don’t allow food or drink in the lobby and have the volunteers enforce that rule, we billed the lunch “as the only time you will ever be able to eat in the lobby.”)

An hour and a half before auditions began, there were already people pacing around doing vocal warm-ups, practicing dance and movement routines and acrobatics. For many of our volunteers walking among this activity on our building tour this was almost an entirely new experience for them. Not only had many of them not been backstage in a theatre, but they had little familiarity with the preparation involved to try out for a play. (I wasn’t even going to attempt to address the differences between a cold reading and prepared monologue audition.)

Overall, I was pretty pleased. Based on criteria from the quality of preparation to interactions and relationship building we see in our volunteers over the next year, we may consider a Fall event better suited for our volunteer recruitment, training and retention needs. Even if we decide to go back to the Spring, I am pretty sure choices we make will be heavily informed by our experiences last weekend.

Managers? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Theatre Managers!

by

In my last entry I mentioned that I would make suggestions for those who might replicate planning exercise I went through at Performing Arts Center Eastside. You might notice I don’t say I will have suggestions on how to improve the experience. I think it is too early in the process to suggest improvements and as I am about discuss, what did happen exceeded my expectations.

As I was preparing for my trip to Bellevue, WA, my biggest concern was about how the participation of the Emerging Leadership Institute group would be received. There was no real precedent for anyone to base their expectations on. The Bellevue community had been planning this facility since 1988 and even if the majority of the board had only become involved in when the non-profit entity was formed in 2002, that is six years investment in planning and fund raising. How would they feel having a group of people making recommendations after only spending a weekend learning about their organization?

The same with the architects. They have a great record for designing splendid performing arts centers (check out the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts.) Would they resent us if we started criticizing their design? With all the information available to people via the Internet these days, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that someone might have fancied themselves an amateur architect and rubbed the building designers the wrong way.

These concerns didn’t keep me awake at night and they really weren’t on my mind by the time we started examining the building design. There was a time during our presentation that I realized that not only were things going a lot better than I anticipated, but there was an unspoken positive, encouraging vibe in the room. Frankly, I was almost giddy with the idea that the process had gone so well because it bodes well for our future and the prospects for replicating this in other places.

Knowing that this might not always be so, I started to think about what things an arts organization could do to ensure things went smoothly if they tried to initiate a similar program. (Other than hiring all those involved at Bellevue, of course!) Probably the best option would be taking a proactive stance and brief all the constituents about what to expect and suggest how to participate most effectively. I have no idea if the people at PACE did any prep with the architects or board members. A comment John Haynes made at dinner made me suspect he hadn’t which speaks well for the open mindedness of these groups. John and Dana didn’t formally do any of the things I am about to suggest with the Emerging Leadership group except provide comfortable surroundings.

So yes, the first suggestion is comfortable working environment with an organized itinerary and breaks scheduled at suitable intervals.

Preparing stakeholders like board members and architects to prepare in a session with a group of advisers can be tough. They can be assured that none of the final decisions are vested in the advising group. Yet you have to go into the exercise intending to value the feedback you receive otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s time. This certainly means you have to be prepared to consider what you might perceive as negative. As people who have just joined the project and aren’t familiar with the intent of every design element they may indeed offend you with what they perceive to be an innocuous comment.

So local constituents should be encouraged to value what is being suggested, try to perceive the basic motivation for advice and respond with a question to clarify that motivation. “So your concern about our plan to have the noon sun fall upon our founder’s bust on her birthday is that it limits the windows, and therefore, natural light in the lobby and creates a dark, unwelcoming atmosphere?” Certainly the board and architects have every right to expect people to back up criticisms with constructive suggestions. Given that the advising group may have only been around for a few days and are not familiar with all options, an answer that they don’t know what a solution might be also has to be respected. This doesn’t mean the concern isn’t warranted and bears additional thought and consideration.

For their part, the advising visitors should probably assume a generally neutral stance. They shouldn’t be looking to evaluate if their facilities and organizational plan is superior or inferior to that of their hosts. We have all met and probably grimaced at the person whose every suggestion is prefaced by “where I used to work, we…” While they have certainly been invited because of their prior experience, that experience isn’t going to define the new organization. Likewise, while improvements a new organization is effecting can lead to a better experience back at the home organization, there are only so many resources available. Again, you can’t define one organization in the exact terms of another.

Nothing I am suggesting here is terribly groundbreaking. They are all based on standard suggestions for listening and responding in meetings. Additional tips for preparing groups to meet could certainly be found in books and magazine articles. Probably the most important suggestion is not to make value judgments about any aspect of the project — “That’s stupid; “The building looks like a warped artichoke” (which I heard about this place); “You are an idiot and clearly have no sense or experience in these matters,” etc., If anything is going to generate resistance and resentment, it is statements in this vein.

My suggestions assume everyone is arriving at the meeting with the best intentions but with the possibility of things going awry. If there hasn’t been buy-in from all involved parties or one party is seeks to use the exercise as leverage over another, obviously there are deeper problems than can be solved by good meeting preparation.

Audience Theory

by

As wonderful an opportunity it was to influence staff workplaces, those of us in the PACE advisory group still understood that the success of the building would be in how comfortable audiences were interacting with the space. When I was preparing to travel to Bellevue, I was mindful of Andrew Taylor’s observations wandering around the streets of Denver at the National Performing Arts Conference that

“block after block of glass or stone walls at the street level, many of them without a door (at least an open one) for hundreds of feet at a time. As a result, there are very few people populating the street, stopping to talk with each other, people watching, lingering, and realizing they’re in an urban streetscape of diversity and energy.”

I approached the facility design with the intention of insuring the building appeared engaging to foot traffic since there are quite a few residential complexes being constructed nearby.

The importance of physical design was actually reinforced for me as we walked to the meeting with the architects. About four-five blocks from the future PACE site, we passed a small area next to the sidewalk with hedges and benches. There was a sign noting that the area was open for public use. I would have never known that because of the way the hedges and a short set of ascending stairs lent it a sense of being private property. Because of this they had to essentially grant people permission to enter.

But to back up a little…. I had mentioned earlier that Alan Brown made a presentation on the value of live performance. Obviously, it is in relation to the audience’s experience that his thoughts are most applicable. It wasn’t until after his presentation that I realized how significant a moment in the design process it had been. The architects and project manager had never really had these ideas addressed in connection with their work before and so were pretty attentive and taking notes. The same was true for a couple board members who were present.

Of the concepts he covered, a number of them caught my attention. The first was his suggestion that interactive experience the Nintendo Wii offers predicts one day being able to virtually perform with Pilobolus. Since he is the first person I have met who has advanced this idea since I began promoting it in 2004, he instantly endeared himself to me.

He also addressed the situation where people were waiting longer and longer to buy their tickets. He spoke of a focus group where he basically discovered young people were afraid to buy a ticket until the last minute because committing to one option closed the door on all the other possibilities. I wondered if this was an element of Generation Y’s problem with decision making.

He said he asked them to describe what they would envision as a perfect jazz club. They said it would be a coffee house during the day but a bar at night with a separate room where those who wanted to be full immersed in the music could go. However, there would also be an anteroom where people could talk with friends and still listen to the music and still another anteroom where people could interact with friends more and listen less.

It seems like a tall order to design a building to provide this experience. However the impression I took away from what Brown had to say was that people at every age really desire an experience at an intermediate stage between listening to a recording and fully attending a formal concert. He described this as a place to drop in and hang out and get more information. One suggestion he made which he certainly did not represent as encompassing all possibilities was having kiosks in the lobby where one could try all sorts of new music. (I imagined something like the listening stations in record stores.) Having a DJ mixing in an area surrounded by comfortable lobby furniture.

Alan Brown’s presentation had a tangible effect on the discussions that followed. The building design already allowed for many of the activities he mentioned so conversations revolved around the possibilities. This is fortunate because if Brown is right, there might be an increased necessity of having such a space as venue for value added benefits. Acknowledging that there are some people who are voracious for an educative experience, Alan Brown proposed that while arts organizations gave education away for free as part of their mission, he suspected people would pay a premium for a private, executive briefing on events.

I have read and heard suggestions that were related to the core idea behind this. There are some complexities to this that I haven’t fully considered so I don’t quite know what I think about this. I suspect for some communities and organizations, he is right on the money with this idea.

As you might imagine from the thought the PACE administration put into the staff work areas, there had been some investment into the design of the public areas as well. As I already mentioned, the layout lends itself to sponsoring some of the programs and features Alan Brown suggested. Some other notable concepts they had were arranging the ticket office so one’s experience was more akin to interacting with a concierge than a reinforced security checkpoint. They have also looked into situating the restrooms so that the lines at intermission don’t become the half time show.

Our advice seemed to be viewed as insightful and even viable within the overall plan and budget. I am demurring on many of the details because so much is undecided at this stage in the game and I don’t want to create any unwarranted expectations about the ultimate result. Participating in the process was very exciting and engaging. While our status as outsiders lent some weight to our observations, Alan Brown’s occasional, but well timed comments lent some reinforcement.

Believe it or not after all this writing, I still have some additional observations to make! My next entry will have some really basic suggestions for those who might want to replicate this exercise.

(Details of this entry have been altered since the original posting to comply with confidentially agreements)

If You Build It, They Will Work

by

To continue in more detail from yesterday’s entry, one of the things about the PACE construction project was the consideration of workspace that had gone into the planning. It was the first area we were asked to assess. One of the problems with the office space in a lot of performing arts facilities is that they are almost inserted as an after thought into the design. Ticket offices especially seem to get the short shrift especially in light of the fact they are the location where 90% of interaction with the public transpires. You want to improve customer service? Try knocking out a few walls and giving the ticket office personnel some room to work!

The placement of staff in relation to each other is an important consideration. A gentleman from Iowa whose offices were inundated by the floods earlier this spring/summer talked about how the dynamics of staff interactions had changed since their temporary quarters forced them to all work on the same floor. He noted what an impact a single set of stairs, or lack thereof, can make.

Much of the conversation was general covering the theoretical needs of each department based on people’s experiences at their home institutions. Some positions need privacy to discuss details. Some need secure storage for personal and financial information. Some, like graphic designers, need to have access to natural light and perhaps control the lighting in their space. The question arose, since you can’t put all the department heads and their support staffs in one place, is it theoretically better to have the department head near the executive director or near his/her staff?

This would be especially true for marketing. If the organization operates under the philosophy that marketing is the job of everyone in the organization, they should have prominent placement in the facility. In a presenting organization it was also felt that the programming person should be in close proximity to keep lines of communication open regarding the viability of promoting different artists. The counter argument to this was that creative types, including the marketing director, tended to thrive in less formal environments than existed near executive offices. Ultimately, the consensus from the marketing people in the group was that they would suffer the neckties if it facilitated the marketing department’s activities.

My stints in marketing departments seem much more straitlaced by comparison. I feel deprived. This was one of the places where the direct value of participation in the project to professional development started to coalesce. At conferences we talk about how to attract audiences to our theatres. What we don’t get a chance to share is how we have arranged our work environment to enhance interactions among staff members.

An observation that continued to be mentioned was that whatever arrangements and organizational culture emerged in the first few years would become the founding precedent for the next 40 years. It can’t be easy for the people at PACE to make these decisions with the awareness of the possible repercussions lingering at the edge of their thoughts.

Some details of this entry have been changed since original posting to comply with confidentiality agreements.

What Value The Compact Disc?

by

Occasionally it is healthy to revisit daily rituals and practices to evaluate if they are still pertinent. For example, every time I go on a trip I clean all my CDs out of car and leave the little door on the CD holder open to show that there are no CDs in my car. It recently struck me that in the time since I bought the car several years ago, the value of CD as a format has dropped so precipitously that no one really wants to break into my car to grab them. In fact, they probably didn’t want to when I bought the car either but the iPod has gone from competing to almost default format in that time.

Realizations like this make me re-examine stuff in my professional life including policies we have set for ticket purchases/exchanges, seating, volunteers, rentals and whatever else comes up. Because we have always done it can’t be the default excuse for continuing to do something. In many cases, because we did it last year might not be valid either as behaviors and values change so quickly.

On the other hand, just as there are still people desperate enough for the few bucks they might get for my CDs at the local record exchange, the cost of someone abusing the lack of a policy might still outweigh the benefit of eliminating it.

Illuminating the Vision

by

When I was reading the Presenting Dance report I referenced a couple weeks ago there was a section of the work where idealism was crashing against realities. One of the suggestions dance companies made was that artistic directors travel to view a work before deciding to contract it given that the artistic fee was a significant portion of a presenter’s budget. The report’s author observed that dance companies apparently think presenting organizations have significantly greater resources than they do. I am guessing a lot of these groups interact with organizations like the Kennedy Center.

That was actually about the most unrealistic expectation anyone had. Some of the other suggestions had to do with removing adversarial relationships and dance companies and presenters working together over long periods to craft a performance and outreach program that best suits the community’s character. The viability of these suggestions seemed to depend more an individual situations than anything else. There are some agents I have comfortable relationships with who don’t seem to take a “No” personally whom I touch base with year after year. There are others who seem like they are only interested in reciting a list of artists they are promoting with whom I am less comfortable about approaching.

Then there are some that seem to regard me as small potatoes and I am lucky they are talking to me. I can only name the people I have a good relationship with off the top of my head so I guess it is probably healthy I dwell only on the positives.

Ability to interact over a long period of time to craft a program isn’t always possible. Often the available information isn’t enough for either the dance company or I to have an informed conversation about how the other operates.

There was an encounter I had which made me very anxious at the beginning but ended with me impressed by the artistic director’s investment in his work. One year a dance company’s agent told us the artistic director required the use of some very expensive lighting equipment for one of the repertory pieces the company would perform. There had been no mention of this in the contract or rider we had been sent. I can’t remember if we had signed and returned the contracts at the time, but this equipment was definitely an unmentioned addendum to the text we had in hand.

Only one of three presenters in my booking consortium had the equipment. The inclusion of the equipment would make an already expensive event more so for the rest of us. We considered canceling the piece except that it was the one dance which would have the most resonance for our audiences. So we suggested less expensive versions of the equipment as an alternative. The artistic director came back and said it definitely had to be the equipment specified.

Now at this point I was starting to think the artistic director was being a prima donna and would suffer no alterations to his vision. People were coming to see the dance, not the lighting instruments. The show may look cooler with the lights but people wouldn’t think less of the work if they don’t know what they are missing. About the same time while doing research for a press release, I came across a review that said one segment of the piece really fell flat and dragged the rest down. This served to add to my anxiety a bit more.

Then we get an email from the agent saying the artistic director felt so strongly that the equipment be present in the piece, he would split the cost with us.

Well whatta ya gonna do about that? 1/3 of the cost was still pretty significant for us but it certainly wasn’t small potatoes for the dance company either. With the help of our local light rental company which started shifting things around months in advance so the correct equipment would end up in the right place at the right time, we ended up with a more affordable option for presenting the artistic director’s vision.

I was still a little concerned that when the company arrived, the artistic director would be running around fretting that everything was wrong and trying to refine picayune details about the production. When they arrived I was somewhat surprised to find that the artistic director was pretty mellow, spent most of the time chatting with my staff and pretty much let his company conduct their own business and stayed out of their way. The segment of the piece which had received criticism in a review was cut which made me think he wasn’t terminally devoted to his work and was open to altering it.

That in mind, I began to believe maybe the special lighting equipment was crucial to the piece if he was willing to pay for a share of it. When I saw the piece, I wasn’t really convinced the effect was worth the expense. If I wasn’t watching for it, I probably wouldn’t have made note of it. The audience really seemed to enjoy the piece which was good. There was actually another piece they enjoyed more. The applause was so long for it I panicked thinking it was the curtain call.

The dance company probably can’t afford to dicker like that with every presenter, nor could we afford to do so with every company. Going the extra mile in this case probably enhanced the experience for both of us. I would have loved to have saved the expense. In the face of the artistic director’s commitment to sharing the cost, it was hard to refuse the piece. Money may not build relationships but the gesture surely did make me feel like we were more like partners in bringing the work to my community. That combined with the audience’s enjoyment and the enthusiastic response to the master class the company conducted made me feel more comfortable about taking on the extra expense.

Did You Just Agree To Go To Abilene?

by

Because non-profit arts often lead a tenuous existence which depends so heavily on the commitment of a small, fairly close knit group, organizations are likely to practice a number of organizational behaviors. One of the least constructive of these is known as the Abilene Paradox. The Abilene Paradox takes its name from an anecdote told by Jerry B. Harvey to illustrate how everyone in a group can end up agreeing to do something none of them want to do.

Harvey tells a story about a visit to his in-laws that ended with the group of them traveling to Abilene, TX in a car without air conditioning to eat an awful meal because each person assumed the others wanted to go rather than stay home and continue enjoying their game of dominoes. The Abilene Paradox is widely used in organizational dynamics classes/seminars so I hope the reputation of Abilene’s cuisine hasn’t suffered.

If you think about it, you can probably recall a similar time when you agreed to a choice you didn’t believe was correct and felt vindicated in your judgment when it failed–except you had voiced your support. Perhaps you even voiced your reservations to another who agreed and discovered they felt as you did.

There is an article by Harvey that illustrates how the paradox can manifest itself in various situations and also contains suggestions on how to avoid taking a trip to Abilene. In what might appear to be the most extreme case, he suggests that the instigator of the misguided trip may need to step forward and declare their misgivings about their own project in order to break the fear which keeps the cycle of reinforcement intact.

“… we frequently fail to take action in an organizational setting because we fear that the actions we take may result in our separation from others, or, in the language of Mr. Porter, we are afraid of being tabbed as “disloyal” or are afraid of being ostracized as “non-team players.”

This is why I felt arts organizations might be especially vulnerable to trips to Abilene. Members aren’t simply employees/volunteers/board members but assumed to be true believers in the cause. There could be a fear, real or imagined that disagreement with the group equates to lack of commitment to the greater ideals rather than merely disloyalty to the company.

Parents No Longer Just At the Stage Door

by

Recently I have been talking about the needs of the next generation of leaders in comparison with those of earlier generations. On the whole I think that those who feel the next generation lacks the commitment to the cause exhibited by theirs can respect the desire for a better work-life balance.

There is a characteristic of the next generation that might be a thornier problem for arts organizations–their parents. The term helicopter parents was originally applied to parents who “hovered” over their children when they went to college. The parents would bug professors about their children’s grades, dorm staff about room mates and in some extreme situations, would actually complete assignments for them.

As the students graduated, the parents began showing up at the work place, at interviews and going so far as to fill out applications and negotiate salaries for their children.

Now I don’t quite know if this is necessarily going to be anything new for performing arts organizations who have always had stage parents hovering around. However, a decision needs to be made on the organization’s policy on parental involvement. As the Forbes article I linked to above notes, some companies are embracing parents. Others feel it is not appropriate for parents to be involving themselves in decisions being made at work and have generated formal responses to the issue.

Fortunately, my mother restricts her complaints about how many hours I am putting in at work to me.

While I have known about helicopter parents for quite awhile now, I haven’t run across any cases anywhere I worked. (Well, one intern’s parents followed him cross country to check out his work site but didn’t contact us past that point except to make a donation.) What impelled me to cover the subject was a video the Next Generation Consulting blog linked to in the entry on mentoring I cited last week. The video is about an hour or so long on the subject of mentoring at accounting firms.

As the speaker, Rita Keller, discussed the issue of parental involvement, she noted that employers needed to be prepared to have the new employees making a lot of personal calls or texting throughout the day. Now if the parents are prodding their kids to get to bed and wake up on time, this can be beneficial to a company. The area she mentions that I believe would be the biggest concern for employers is lack of initiative and decision making skills. Because these young people have consulted with their parents and friends on so many issues in their lives multiple times a day, they tend to crave/require specific guidance or advice and lack the ability to act independently.

The results of helicopter parenting and the general technological environment the next generation of workers have grown up in is the subject of a really good article from HR Magazine that addresses the issue and how to structure the work environment to best channel younger workers’ energies. There are some benefits these folks bring like familiarity with technology and a facility of working with groups and multi-tasking. But there are also some disadvantages too like indiscretion, unrealistic expectations and impatience.

Forget Snakes on A Plane, How About Arts on a Train?

by

Thanks to the lovely people over at GrantStation, the deadlines for two interesting arts related funding opportunities came to my attention.

The first is community based grant program administered by Union Pacific. Essentially if you live west of the Mississippi River and have train tracks running through your town you are probably in a Union-Pacific community and are eligible.

The second is some what more interesting. Johnson Johnson/Society for the Arts in Healthcare are looking for programs that “promotes the evaluation and replication of promising models in order to strengthen and expand the arts in healthcare field.” The most difficult eligibility criterion appears to be membership in the Society for the Arts in Healthcare. Otherwise they are primarily interested in programs that have been in existence 3 years or longer and that can be replicated on a national level.

When I saw this, I immediately thought of a program in Brooklyn I had written about three years ago. At the time the hospital, Woodhull Medical Center, was offering inexpensive health care for artists in exchange for their performance or interactions in the wards and units. They may have expanded the program since then. In any case, I sent the grant information to Laura Colby who is mentioned in the NY Foundation for the Arts article referenced in my entry. What she helped start would definitely be a boon to artists if it were rolled out nationwide.

Hopefully some of my readers out there have some similarly good ideas or at least know of some being enacted right now.

Donors With Baggage

by

There was a short piece on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s website about fund raising (subscription required). What caught my eye was some of the insights it provided about how people money and the act of donating it. The story cites Laura Fredricks, a former fundraiser for Pace University and Temple University, who addressed attendees at Fund Raising Day in New York 2008 last week.

Much of what I read and heard at conferences about fund raising primarily deals with strategies for developing a relationship with a donor and convincing them to support your organization. In some respects, much of the advice has been similar to what is given in regard to dating. Some of the advice is a little aggressive and cutthroat and some advocates a more practical and sensitive approach. (Of course, there is also the “be content being single” camp but that philosophy doesn’t quite work in fundraising.)

In any case the advice generally focuses on a somewhat formulaic planned approach. Just as dating tips rarely acknowledge that other people have the baggage of past dating experiences which will impact the relationship you are trying to cultivate, I rarely hear/read a similar acknowledgment in connection with fund aising.

One of the anecdotes mentioned in the story was about a wealthy developer who never gave more than $1,000 at a time to Temple. When Fredricks asked why, she discovered that even though he could afford to give more, he harbored fears about running out of money that went back to his childhood.

She recognizes that the people who ask for money like presidents and trustees also have varying degrees of comfort with the subject. “They should be treated the same way donors are—as individuals with different emotions about money—and given simple requests, she said. Instead of giving a reticent board member a list of prospective donors, Fredricks suggested starting out with the names and biographical information of two current donors and then asking the trustee to call them to say thank you.”

Back when I was fresh out of grad school I remember having a conversation with someone about fund raising. I don’t quite remember who it was but the comment was made that you couldn’t ask someone to make a large contribution of money until you had made a large contribution yourself. The idea was that if you had done so you could empathize with what motivated someone to donate that much to something they believed in and could also understand how making such a donation impacted their standard of living.

At the time a $50 would have had dire consequences on my standard of living so I really wasn’t ready to do serious fund raising at that point in my career. Some of the other advice given at the Fund raising Day in New York meeting actually revolved around this idea. One person suggested requesting large donors make the ask for similarly large gifts.

One last tip that caught my eye which might be rather difficult for some arts organizations to embrace given perennially precarious financial straits. “Don’t show your desperation, no matter how far you are from hitting your goal. You’re not raising money to keep your organization from going out of business.” Yeah, right! That little bit of advice came from Michael Margitich, senior deputy director for external affairs at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. The approach he said he used while at Columbia University was “he was raising additional funds to ‘maintain our level of excellence.'”

Chinese Philanthropy

by

While I was in China, there were a lot of appeals for donations to the Sichaun earthquake relief effort on television. This came in the form of ads and what appeared to be telethon type programs. What I found interesting was that philanthropy on this scale seems to be a new thing for China. There was a program on CCTV International that was discussing this new development. While they do have video of the program on their website, I can’t get it to run so I will have to depend on the notes I jotted on the hotel stationary. I apologize for not having more details. I just happened upon the program while waiting to go to dinner so there was a period where I was casting about for a pen and pad.

The participants in the discussion mentioned that people were learning about how to give due to the earthquake. An American working for a foundation in Beijing mentioned the benefits of philanthropy. One example he gave was developing solidarity and morale within a company when employees at overseas branches donate to help their counterparts in China and vice versa.

What I found most interesting was the concept of recognition for donations. There seemed to be an unmentioned back story behind the host’s question regarding public recognition. I almost wondered if there were a lot of people expecting public recognition for their largesse and it might be sapping energy from the relief effort. The American foundation person pointed out that yes, while there were public monuments to large donors in the United States, there was a strong tradition of anonymous donation as well.

The discussion also touched on the idea that recipients of donations should be held highly accountable for the way they administered the money they received. And as in the U.S., donors should investigate these organizations and decide if the charities are using the donations in an effective manner.

There was also mention of whether China should institute an inheritance tax to provide an incentive for the growing affluent class to donate.

None of these concepts are new for the U.S. It was rather interesting to watch people begin to think about what it means to be charitable outside one’s local situation for the first time. I will be interested to see what develops. Despite all the input they can garner from the biggest and best charities and foundations in the world, I am sure the Chinese will create their own method of philanthropy, partially of necessity and partially based on their cultural values.

Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men

by

During a meeting I had today I was reminded of a series of problems I had with a group of traveling artists some time ago. I think enough time has passed that I can talk about it without revealing the identity of the group to any but the most ingenious of researchers.

One of the things I am often most anxious about when a performing group arrives is that they won’t find the arrangements we have made suitable to their needs. Following the advice of the man who trained me in the business, I am pretty meticulous about advancing a show with a road manager. I double check the details of a rider just in case personnel changes result in different dietary or technical needs. It isn’t foolproof but generally the worst that happens is the group arrives and says, “Oh, you must have the old rider,” and accommodates what is usually the lack of something minor.

I am also upfront about anything we can’t provide as soon as the topic comes up. If I suspect there might be a problem brewing with something, I send off an email confirming conversations so that I have it in writing and time stamped. In one case, I reiterated a fact in three different emails because it didn’t seem to be sinking in to the guy’s brain. Fortunately, it did before he arrived.

There was an instance where despite a lengthy conversation with the road manager the group had issues with the food, hotel and transportation after they arrived. The only thing that didn’t emerge as a problem was the technical equipment we provided. What contributed to the problem was that the agent and the road manager apparently did not communicate the information to the artists. The artists did not communicate their needs with the road manager or have them written into the contract. What seemed strangest to me was that they had been touring for years upon years and hadn’t ironed these details out. There were plenty of “you must haves” listed in the contract but a lot of basic details omitted, too.

The night before the group arrived the road manager called and said that the group would like to exercise the option I had mentioned (and expected them to exercise) a month earlier and have their rooms upgraded to suites. They would pick up the cost difference. So I scramble and as luck would have it, there are enough suites available. I am also asked to make a dentist appointment for the first business day after the concert for a group member who is having a problem with a tooth. Even more amazingly, I find someone at a dentist office near the hotel that late at night and make the arrangements during the specific time frame the performer requested.

When the group arrives, we go to the venue and I am asked to go grab food for the group because they hadn’t gotten to eat before their flight and their technical director doesn’t want them leaving the theatre. (Come to find out, they went swimming instead of eating earlier that day.) Later when dinner arrives, we discover the caterer has decided to embellish a little and stuffed the entree with crab. One of the group won’t eat it because of the crab.

Now my mother is deathly allergic to shellfish and has almost died on a number of occasions. The two questions about food I specifically address is seafood allergies because of her and vegetarian requirements because the term means different things to different people. There were no allergies of any sort mentioned. So off I go for two more meals because one of the other people decides that since I am going anyway they would rather have something else.

An hour before curtain the road manager comes and asks if I can move them to another hotel. Now note that at this point, they haven’t checked in to the rooms I upgraded for them the day before. The reason is due to a minor feature, the lack of which I revealed to the road manager a month prior. Since I had made the reservations month earlier to secure good rates during high season and a purchase order had been issued to cover the estimated cost at that hotel, there was nothing I could do.

I think they secretly wanted to stay at a specific hotel because they ended up staying there on their own dime which equaled four times the amount they would have paid for the upgraded rooms I arranged. Unfortunately, due to the fact I had canceled the rooms hours before they were to be occupied, I ended up paying for them. Fortunately, the hotel took pity on me and only charged me the regular room rate rather than the suite rate.

After the show, I discovered that instead of one trip to the airport, they had changed their plans and would now be leaving at four different times. The next day was a non-travel day for the company and all seemed well. No messages at all from the group. Still, after I went home I checked my voice mail and email regularlly for problems. Then at 11 pm I got a call at home (a number I didn’t give them) from the road manager saying the group wanted to alter their pick up times.

That was about the end of the troubles, fortunately. If I recall, the performance was great. The audience loved it and had no clue what was happening behind the scenes. The one thing I appreciated was that they let the road manager do all the talking. Maybe it was because they didn’t like confrontational situations. But I was glad that as I drove them to the hotel I didn’t book, they didn’t try to explain themselves. They kept thanking me and my staff for all we did and talked about how grateful they were. I grinned and bore it while looking forward to their departure thinking all the while that if they were really grateful, they would stop making my life a living hell. Revisiting a frustrating topic while driving would probably not have been a good idea so I was just as happy to have them ignore that elephant in the room.

Were I to offer any advice to people starting out and those who have been lucky enough not to have a couple days like these. This was one of those fluke occurrences that transpire despite your diligent efforts to address issues well in advance. In fact, good advance planning allowed the situation not to get worse. The night of the performance everything that I would usually wander around checking on was completed by staff and volunteers doing their jobs. That left me the time to address these problems without overtly freaking out. Following this incident, I am sure I annoyed the next few road managers coming through on tour to no end double and triple checking their requirements. But I guarantee you that everyone has been happier that I have wanted to be better safe than sorry.

Fitting Ass Ears On Another Bottom

by

I have been participating in some interesting exchanges lately. The drama production class produced a pretty dark adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the Lab Classroom this semester. I wasn’t too keen on the show in principle because it was set in a dance club and an organization in town had just finished their 3rd revival of Romeo and Juliet set in a strip club. I was annoyed that it was so derivative when so many other options available.

Taken on its own, it was pretty good. There were some inventive moments. For example, since the playwright decided the rude mechanicals didn’t have enough time to rehearse and learn lines, he has them present a silent butoh version of Pyramis and Thisbe. The students did a good job creating the club atmosphere by having officious bouncers at the door, black lights in the stairwell and a half-hour pre-show of the characters dancing in the club. The pre-show lent itself especially well to establishing the Helena-Demetrius-Hermia characters and backstory.

In any case, the show sold out every night of the extended run. The director started thinking it would be great to do it on Mainstage setting up platform seating around a playing area on stage rather than having the audience sit in the permanent seats. The playwright and I are both against the idea because the dynamics of the show will be entirely different. Instead of the cramped quarters and low ceilings of the Lab classroom, audiences will be watching a show surrounded by the wide open spaces of the wing space on the sides and the 70 feet of air in the fly system overhead.

To create the same ambiance, we would have to have everyone come in through the loading dock roll up door at the back of the theatre, build a hallway through the shop into a room we constructed on stage. At a certain point it seems strange to build a theatre inside your theatre. Even still the relationship of the audience to the actors and to each other is going to change. The small basement space holds 75 people which translates to two rows of 12 chairs on three side of the playing area. The director is talking about serving an audience of 300. Even if the performance was done fully in the round, that is 75 people in each direction. This increase in both the width and the depth of the seating area changes the size of the playing area and reduces the sense of tension and conflict.

Of course, part of the endeavor would be to create an entirely new production that had its own character rather than to recreate the elements of a past success. Though as the playwright pointed out, each revival of the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet adaptation was worse than the one before. Granted, they didn’t have the benefit of our superb production team. The adage about not being able to enter the same river twice probably is a good caution when considering your motivation for reviving a show.

The date proposed for the revival is Fall 2010 and a lot can happen in the interim. Perhaps both the playwright and I will feel less strongly about the topic a year from now when the time comes to decide such things. I don’t talk a lot about the decision making process I go through here on the blog. I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to record some of the considerations that have come into play. It will be interesting to me to see how I view things next year and 18 months hence if the decision to perform it on our mainstage is made.

Wow Neighbor, Your Grass Is So Green!

by

At a time when arts organizations are merging the executive and artistic director position into one, either as a cost saving measure or because they can’t identify suitable candidates to fill vacant roles,** comes praise of dual leadership as a model for non-profits in general to emulate.

Says the Nonprofiteer:

“…the Nonprofiteer wonders why all nonprofits don’t adopt the bifurcated leadership model common in the arts: an Artistic Director to lead program, a Managing Director to handle resource acquisition and allocation.

Wouldn’t social service agencies operate better with someone at the helm whose expertise was effective service to clients and someone at the rudder whose expertise was squeezing every dime til it shrieked? These are not identical skills–they’re not even complementary–and for charities to insist on combining them into a unitary Executive Director means one part of what they need done will almost inevitably be done badly.”

In all the performing arts organizations for which I have worked, the artistic director has always held a subordinate position to the executive director, if only a half-step below. I can’t really speak with authority about whether two equal leaders is effective. I have worked in a situation with an Executive Director and a subordinate Artistic Director and in situations with an Executive Director and a subordinate artistic and managing director. In the former situation, the two directors worked closely as partners, but it was clear where the final decision resided.

I don’t know if the Non-Profiteer is suggesting two people in equal roles necessarily. I am familiar with the structure of a number of non-profit social service organizations and short of a couple very large entities, I can think of none where there was a programs person with the scope of authority and responsibility comparable to an artistic director. Any change may not require an equitable relationship as much as less a lopsided one between the two areas.

What is interesting to me is that the Nonprofiteer’s comments have made me re-evaluate the dual leadership issue. Deciding to consolidate positions for economic reasons or because the board can’t/doesn’t want to find a replacement suggested problems about the organizations other than the implications of a changed leadership dynamic. It is certainly easy to see how both roles can get the short shrift with satisfaction for neither when they are invested in one person. My thoughts upon reading that the positions were being consolidated were generally that it was too bad for that company rather than the decision was bad for the performing arts world as a whole other than considering it an example of poor decision making. Some times it takes the observation of an outsider to make you reevaluate if something is valuable enough to fight to keep.

(**I wanted to cite the article I recently read supporting this fact in but for the life of me, I can’t find it.)

Fezzik Was Right!

by

In the movie, The Princess Bride, the character Fezzik talks about how fighting one man is different than fighting a group. (It is right around 1:35) In fact, according to the powerful giant, it can be tougher to fight one person than a group.

It a lesson I relearned this past week when we were hosting a one person show. When we have a group of people visit to perform, even if they number as small as three, they are generally mutually reliant and supporting. They work out their schedule among each other and get themselves where they are going. With a single person, the dynamic changes and the relationship with them can become more intimate.

I had approached last week thinking that the group before had presented little difficulty and how much less a problem an individual would be. In some respects it was, but in many other aspects the performer’s visit consumed much more of my time and attention than most groups do.

For example, groups generally take their meals together be it catered in house or driving to a nearby restaurant. Smaller groups might invite staff and crew to take meals with them but with an individual, the opportunity presents itself more often and feels natural. Last week I ended up eating dinner out more times than I ever have since moving here. I was late or missed events I frequent weekly as a result.

While I regularly escort performers to their hotel after meeting them at the airport, there are times I don’t if they feel comfortable driving themselves. Last week I waited around 4 hours to escort him while he unpacked and set up at the theatre. Sure I would have rather gone home, but he was in a strange city, it was raining and while it is easy to get to the hotel, he didn’t have anyone to help him navigate.

Working with an individual performer doesn’t always present challenges. The dinner conversation was great. In fact, I was disappointed that I wasn’t able to take him around to a more diverse group of restaurants. Last year I was driving a single performer to the theatre to rehearse and took a 20 minute detour to a scenic overlook because the she kept admiring how beautiful it was and I knew she would appreciate the view. These usually aren’t options that even enter consideration with groups. One’s relationship with individuals is more likely to feel like a guest and host or even familial interaction.

In some situations, dealing with a single person is less difficult if they relax their expectations. For most of the week we had our hospitality set up moved from our green room to the scene shop because it was less trouble to grab water, coffee, cookies and fruit from the stage. Generally performers are less keen about getting their coffee next to a table saw.

When we talk about customer service, speak of treating every individual as if they are the most important person. But if this type of experience has reminded me of anything, it is that the standard of care rendered to people has to be anything but. People in groups often get a lot of what they need from their companions. Dealing with individuals sometimes thrusts the role of a companion upon you by default.

Part of the point I am trying to make isn’t so much about having a separate way of dealing with a single person at the box office versus a group that comes to buy their tickets as it is an attempt to create a metaphor about being mindful of the dynamic that group size dictates. Our audience had as different a relationship with the single performer as I did. It may seem self-evident in your mind that the experience would be different, but there are assumptions about what will happen that we automatically project on our experience based on past experience that simply are not valid. In such cases, operating as business as usual may yield disappointing results for audience, artist and staff.

Management Students Got Skills. You Better Recognize That Fact

by

One of the things I hate most about attending conferences is that the sessions I want to see most seem to always be scheduled at the same time. One of the tough choices I made was between a session on Emerging Leaders and one on the career opportunities for Arts Management program graduates. I attended the latter hoping to purchase the audio of the other session only to discover it wasn’t recorded due to a mix up about what hotel it was occurring at.

The session on career opportunities for arts managers was lead by Andrew Taylor of the Bolz School, Irene Conley, Chair of Performing Arts Management at the Hartt School and a gentleman whose name I neglected to note.

The discussion wasn’t so much about the job market that will greet arts managers as it was about the skillsets arts managers will need to possess.

Conley mentioned the importance of problem solving, resourcefulness, critical thinking skills and good communication skills. One of the things she requires her students to do is make four new contacts each week as a networking exercise forcing them to do enough background research on people that they can answer questions about each person.

As part of the classroom experience, she emphasizes the process of group work as well as the end product. She has the students evaluate what they did as a member of the team since that is the dynamic they need to operate within in a job environment.

She works to make sure the internship opportunities her students avail themselves of are meaningful and not just providing advanced knowledge in copier machines.

Andrew Taylor took a slightly different approach in talking about what skills managers should have. His contention is that arts organizations look for a one to one correlation between a job description and the skillset a person has. He noted that corporate recruiters know what type of person they are looking for, the skills that will translate to their industry and assume the person can acquire the specific knowledge they need on the job.

Arts organizations don’t know what they want, write up an extensive wish list and then try to find someone who has those exact skills. If I understood Taylor’s explanation correctly, finding an exact fit is not only difficult, it also contributes to a view of the organization that is limiting. The idea that the activities of development are exclusive of marketing which are exclusive of sales is the type of thinking that stunts progress. A person needs skills and understanding that encompass all these areas regardless of which one they are being hired for.

As an illustration, Taylor mentions that an associate was looking for someone to run the box office of a large performing arts center. After some dissatisfaction with candidates from the arts field, he ended up hiring a person who had run a Sears phone order center because they had a better sense of how to manage offering service on that scale.

Taylor says he trains his students to essentially take control of interviews and use answers that create a bridge between what the organization is looking for and the skills the student possess to show how their experience translates.

I made the comment that I thought another skill set people needed was the ability to talk about and advocate for the arts. I mentioned the need to communicate the value of the arts at all ends of the spectrum– advocating to governments and grant makers, (noting that recent research shows that the arts may not be best served by citing economic value of the arts), all the way down to press releases and speaking to individuals.

The part of the session that got me thinking the most though was the idea that arts organizations don’t know what they are looking for when they hire. I currently have my hands tied in that regard since I work for a state institution that pretty much codifies how good a candidate for a position is based on number of years experience and education. I have clearly seen more effective people paid less because their experience and education were less than others.

I imagine there will come a day when I can’t hide behind the strictures of a bureaucracy when it comes to determining who is best suited for a job so I have already started pondering what the skills are that candidates for arts jobs should possess. How should a job description be written to attract people with these skills and knowledge? What appears in the descriptions today that don’t reflect what we really need/should be seeking?

What I think I need to do is ask Andrew Taylor if he has come across a situation where the description, interview and actual position all correspond appropriately. I fear his answer will be that such a situation doesn’t exist within the arts world.

Arts Leaders Ain’t Learnin’ Too Good

by

I have just returned from the Arts Presenters Conference. I must have tried to do too much in too little time because I am fighting off a cold right now. I did want to make a post on one of the sessions I attended because some of the information communicated was simply fascinating.

In the Learning to Lead session The Artful Manager, Andrew Taylor’s graduate students presented the results of their research about what resources arts managers used to learn and solve problems. When they finished, I got up and asked a question about the results of their survey. They found that 90% of people read reports, books, etc at least once a year. I asked what end of the spectrum the majority of responses fell since last year Neill Archer Roan had presented findings at the APAP conference that said that learning was not valued in the presenting field.

Since Neill’s research was based on interviews and were anecdotal, I wasn’t sure if his results were any more scientifically based than the grad student’s results which was based on a self-selected group that filled out an online survey. I also stated some curiosity about whether people who were more comfortable with online surveys might be reading more reports via that medium. The students who responded said the reading that was taking place were skewed toward the less frequent.

I hadn’t known that Neill was sitting a couple rows behind me and soon he got up to address the issue of learning not being valued. I was so amazed by what he had to say, I bought the MP3 file of the session so that I could quote him accurately.

Speaking of the work the Roan Group does, he said,

“We believe there is a cultural bias against learning in this field and in the non-profit field as a whole. We believe that that exists for several reasons. One is cultural another is really biological. There are a lot of studies about satisfaction and how we are actually wired…Someone who is rationally satisfied behaves no differently than someone who is rationally dissatisfied. People behave differently when they are emotionally satisfied…the pathways back to learning are different where there is emotional satisfaction…I think in our field and in the performing arts, there is so much emotional satisfaction…that is actually a barrier to our need to understand and respond. (my emphasis)

The idea that emotional satisfaction, which is probably what allows people in the arts to tolerate low pay and long hours, is actually inhibiting progress just sort of blew my mind.

He goes on to say that in the arts there isn’t a practice of looking back and evaluating a situation for what works and didn’t work and then documenting the findings. Without the documentation, the arts rely on tacit knowledge carried in individuals. While tacit knowledge is superior to documented knowledge, if you have high turnover, your organization doesn’t learn.

The session was about two hours long so I imagine there will be other insights I will derive from them as I review the file.

How Do Leaders Learn

by

Next week I will attending the Association of Performing Arts Presenters conference in NY. Unlike last year where I was there for a week attending the conference and Emerging Leadership Institute, this year I am in and out very quickly in a weekend. I cringe at the thought of all that time on the plane. Once I get there, I know I will wonder why I ever resisted the idea because I get so much out of the experience. I enjoy the opportunity to see showcases, talk to artists and learn about new trends and philosophies in performing arts.

One of my biggest motivations for attending this year is to continue what was started last year in having Emerging Leadership alumni involved at the conference and advance an agenda. We have meetings and social gatherings planned this year. We were going to sponsor an issues session until we learned that Andrew Taylor’s students at the Bolz Center were going to be presenting findings from a study that was generally aligned with our purpose.

We also encouraging our membership (and anyone else interested in the topic) to attend the session at the conference, Learning to Lead: Where And How to Arts Professionals Extend Their Knowledge and Advance Their Craft. Andrew has a post about it on his blog today. Even if you aren’t going to attend, if you are an arts leader, please consider filling out the 15 question survey that will inform the discussion and findings of the session.

The survey asks questions about where one goes looking for knowledge and help in solving problems. Though it could probably comprise an entire research session of its own, I would have liked to see some questions asking people to measure the value of the guidance/help they receive. From conversations I have had over the last year, I suspect a good many people would comment that they weren’t getting the guidance they needed or perhaps were having a hard time identifying a trustworthy person with whom to discuss their problems.

And though it wouldn’t be scientific and might have been a little more time consuming, it would have been interesting if they asked where people got their initial training in the arts. I am just curious how many people have formal education and how many were mentored and learned on the job.

In any case, while Andrew will undoubtedly have an entry discussing the session, I intend to do one as well to present my perspective. I usually try to avoid duplicating the subject of his posts since I assume we share a lot of readers. But I am making a very long flights in very short time. I am gonna earn the right to bloviate a little. I am sure my approach will differ from Taylor’s to some extent any way.

Feng Shui Your Practices

by

Since things are quieting down around the theatre this week (we only have a pre-school Christmas show, college winter graduation, Nutcracker brush up rehearsal and performances). I have been trying to dispose of obsolete equipment from around the office and such.

One of the things it is difficult to do around a theatre is get rid of stuff. The technical director here is notorious for holding on to things. In one respect this is good because so much is recycled, we don’t need to purchase new materials all the time. Saving money is good.

On the other hand, there are items we have had for 25 years and haven’t used and probably will never use again. We have tried to get rid of them but he insists we keep them against a theoretical use we may have in the future. This is preventing us from freeing up some much needed storage space and actually endangering other objects given that many of the old pieces are termite infested. We are able to toss some things out while he is on vacation (parting is less painful out of sight) or when they crumble under his touch due to the aforementioned termites.

Given that he is the one that has to work around the lack of storage, the situation is really more a bother for him than for me. I merely look around the shop and sigh about all the room we would have if shelves and the area under the pit were cleaned out.

In some respects, I am as bad as he only on a much smaller scale. We got brand new shiny ticket printers this summer but I just packed away the old one “just in case” even though it won’t work well at all with our new ticketing software. If the new printer had a problem, it would be a better use of our time to hand write all our tickets rather than attempt to configure the software to the old printer.

I am sure these type of practices are a metaphor for theatre as an industry as a whole. Resistance to tossing out barely functional equipment for fear we may one day need it probably equates to holding on to old practices and programming for fear that adopting new ones might leave us with less of an audience than we are already drawing.

In fact, I am pretty sure a feng shui practitioner would say that cluttering our space with old, unused objects is anchoring us to the past and hindering the progress we could be making in our lives. Since there are some items that we use often like our platforms, those feng shui practitioners and people on those anti-clutter home improvement shows wouldn’t necessarily counsel us to toss them.

Repainting a platform to make it look better on stage is one thing, but dressing up old audience development and programming strategies is another. The platform has some functional life left to it. There is often less hope to be found in old marketing practices.

The fear of discarding something with even marginal use when you have an untried replacement–or no replacement at all, can be paralyzing. I fully acknowledged to my assistant theatre manager that I would probably toss the old ticket printer this summer but I couldn’t bring myself to part with it just right now.

Sharing the Gold and Fleece

by

In years past I have written about how the members of my block blocking consortium leverage our purchasing power by proposing a tour to performers and their agents. Given the difficulty of finding workable time slots among 3-6 different organizations across the state, we often earn our discounts.

One thing I hadn’t found was a good example of producing organizations who cooperated to cut costs. Among presenters like my consortium, the questions that come up are mainly date and cost related–when are the artists available, are there openings on members’ calendars, can we afford the terms the performers seek.

Among producing organizations, there are so many more questions many potentially related to the artistic differences among the organizations- who does the casting, who designs costumes, lights, sets. Will the artistic quality and value reflect what patrons have come to expect of their local theatre. Will the other theatres have input into any of these elements? How much of the sets travel and how much is built by each organization? Given differences in stage sizes, what set pieces may be cut and still maintain the vision of the directors and designers?

How is it going to be paid for? If the theatres each normally operate under different Equity pay rates, will the actors be paid differently in each theatre?

Presenters face some of these questions on occasion, but to very limited degree compared to groups that are co-producing.

A blog entry on the McCarter Theatre website sheds some light on some of these questions. They are co-producing Argonautika with Berkeley Rep and Shakespeare Theatre Company. The show was rehearsed and first opened in San Francisco though the show was cast from auditions at all three locations. All three organizations are sharing all rehearsal costs (including the brush ups when the show moves) and presumably a portion of many of the other costs.

I liked McCarter Producing Associate, Adam Immerwahr’s reasons for partnering with other organizations.

1) it allows what would otherwise be a local production to have a much broader impact;

2) it allows an artist to continue to develop their work over time (allowing them another chance to make adjustments with each production);

3) it can be a cost-saving measure, allowing each of the theaters to share common costs (like the set, costumes, rehearsal time and casting expenses);

4) it is a way for multiple theaters to each share their expertise (new play development, mounting musicals, building big sets, etc.).

I especially appreciated the final point about shared expertise. I have been talking about cooperative efforts for a long time and while cost-savings is certainly going to be important in increasingly difficult financial times, I have always felt sharing knowledge and effort was going to prove crucial to the survival of many arts organizations because so little occurs among arts entities to begin with.

Succession Expectations

by

The cultivation of young, emerging arts leaders is a topic of growing importance these days. Two weeks ago, Andrew Taylor quoted as speech by Ben Cameron of the Doris Duke Foundation in which Cameron noted

“….expectations from young people around higher compensation, shorter hours, in essence less patience for the sacrificed lives of dignity and the financial masochism that were the givens for so many in my own generation — this conversation brought to my ears, at least, a new strand: the unwillingness of emerging leaders to be mere custodians of organizations they inherit.

“There are plenty of us eager to give ourselves to the arts.” they said, “But unless we are given the same authority to reinvent and reshape organizations as you yourselves were given, we are not interested.”

The current issue of Inside Arts magazine addresses the same topic. (free registration required) The article, Leading into the Future, starts out talking about a young woman who becomes involved with an arts organization, ends up working 90 hour weeks and finally quits and starts working for a finance firm because the pay and opportunities to pursue her musical interests are much better. Fortunately, the story has a happy ending as the woman ends up working for the Future of Music Coalition.

The general theme of the piece is that arts organizations need to recognize what the interests and goals of young people in the arts are. While the arts can’t offer good pay, the industry can provide people with a means of expressing themselves. Only, they need to be allowed the time to do so.

The article quotes Andrew Taylor in his role as head of the Arts Management program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“We have an astounding resource in terms of the value and power of the work, but we’ve created rigid structures that are not the kind of places young people want to work. My students are passionate, skilled and trained, but when they get into a place with an apprentice mindset, and they don’t get meaningful work for the first three to five years, it’s a waste on both sides.”

and later is quoted as saying

“Some experienced leaders say there aren’t people ready to step up, but that’s because they don’t see people exactly like them,” Taylor said. “The perception is that the younger generation is not as committed . . . [but] there are young people all over the place who are passionate and ready to lead.”

This is definitely an area to keep an eye on. As arts leadership approach retirement age, succession issues are going to come to the fore. Questions will emerge about not only who will take over but how these new leaders expect their organizations to operate in relation to employees.

Investing In Partner Success

by

I am not a big Oprah fan but I heard a story last week on All Things Considered that really impressed me as to how invested her show is in the success of their partners. The story focuses on a small company with 6 employees whose soaps were chosen to be given away on air as part of Oprah’s Favorite Things.

One of the things the Oprah people did was send the company technical details for their web server to make sure their website didn’t go down from all the visits they were likely to get. Apparently Oprah’s website gets near 4 million hits alone when she does her favorite things shows. It just strikes me that the show could easily regard the show as throwing favor to the small company and let them fend as best they can. Some of the other favorite things were made by corporations like Samsung, Hasbro, United Artists and LG electronics who have to resources to maintain websites and fulfill orders and are more likely to be partners in the future.

Even though arts organizations feel like they are the ones seeking/begging favor, there are plenty of times when arts organizations have the opportunity to make a partner’s experience more enjoyable. It might be the quality of advance materials for a school outreach or giving a sponsor a high quality of care even though they aren’t one of your bigger donors.

Bad Habits of Bad Managers

by

There is a column on the Fast Company website, Ten Habits of Incompetent Managers that makes for an interesting read.

Some of the habits author Margaret Heffernan mentions are pretty common sense- afraid to make a mistake, keeping too many problems secret from employees, afraid confronting a problem will hurt people’s feelings, focus on picayune details to hide general incompetence, heavy use of consultants and problem with deadlines.

There was one habit that never occurred to me and another that I wasn’t sure could be true for the arts. The habit that never entered my mind was Inability to Hire Former Employees. “Every good manager has alumni, eager to join the team again; if they don’t, smell a rat.” Heffernan believes if a person has spent a long time in the industry but hasn’t mentored people who are interested in working for them when they move on, it might be time to be concerned.

There are some areas of the arts where following someone isn’t practical, of course. But this criteria can provide a metric for some positions.

The bad habit I am not sure could be applied to the arts is Long hours. Says Heffernan-

“In my experience, bad managers work very long hours. They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights, early mornings and no time off cannot manage himself so you’d better not let him manage anyone else.”

Managers in the arts work long hours because the hours are often long and there is a lot of work to be done and few people to do it. I will concede, however, that a lot of arts people see working long hours as heroic. I have conflicting thoughts about this. Since I have engaged in long hours in the name of art, I acknowledge that putting in the hours is a necessary part of the job.

I also feel that those who work long hours over an extended period of time, perhaps secretly thriving on their martyrdom, they are masking serious deficiencies in an organization. If it is not clear that the work load is beyond the organizational capacity, changes to procedures can not be effected, staffing needs aren’t addressed and additional programs are created in the belief there is a little wiggle room. It isn’t until people leave or collapse in exhaustion that the extent of the problem is realized.

What Would Your Answers Be?

by

Last week I received a questionnaire from a Performing Arts Management student at the Hartt School of the University of Hartford. With her permission, I am reposting it here. It gives some insight into what up and coming leaders are thinking.

As a theatre/company manager…

What educational background is required/expected?

What kind of experience is required/expected?

Where are the jobs? Who does the hiring?

Will there be jobs in this field in 5 years? 15 years?

What are the “big names” in the field?

What personal characteristics are needed for success in this field?

I haven’t formulated my answers yet. I am a little wary about prognosticating on the whole idea of whether there will be jobs in 5 years or 15 years. My answer will certainly be longer than a yes or no.

The question that interested me most was regarding who the big names in the field are. Folks like Joe Dowling at the Guthrie and Libby Appel who just left Oregon Shakespeare come to mind. But it occurs to me that unlike other areas of the arts, there are no managers that I ever hear people say they want to emulate.

When a design from a big name designer comes in, I have heard tech directors and designers make impressed noises. When the names of noted directors, choreographers, musicians, actors and dancers are attached to a production, it lends a degree of gravitas. Artists and even theatre managers often express an interest in working with these talented people, but rarely, if ever, have I heard anyone say they wanted to work with a specific theatre manager. I have heard people voice strong desires to work at theatres, but can’t remember anyone say they wanted to absorb the wisdom of one of the administrative leaders.

My theory is that this is because a theatre manager is effective in relation to the community in which they operate. What they do well may not translate well to other places. Knowing this, other theatre managers don’t tend to idolize too many others. which is not to say they don’t envy another’s resources and budget.

Now one may claim that directors, performers and designers must tailor their approaches to different physical spaces, technical resources and personnel. However, these people are dealing with others who share a standard vocabulary. They can send emails and FEDEX packages in advance of their arrival and progress can be made without anyone even knowing what they look like.

A theatre manager can’t administer from afar and sight unseen based on inventory lists, census data and other transmitted information. They have to walk around the facility and physically assess assets and liabilities, they have to drive around town and get a sense of the community, they have to make personal contact with people.

Now my alternate theory is that given reports I have read noting that theatre managers rarely get a chance to review the latest literature on myriad topics related to running their organization, no buzz is being generated about management superstars.

One thing I have heard often which backs up my “good management is local” theory is people expressing admiration for managers at their organization or organizations in their area. It is these managers with whom people have regular contact that they wish to emulate.

My answer to the student’s question about big names will probably encompass a bit of what I have written here as well as the names of some management theorists with whom I believe managers should be familiar.

I present these questions here as a challenge to my blog readers to consider what your answers might be to this student. And if anyone has any thoughts, I would be happy to pass them along to her.

Boards Evaluating Chief Executives

by

I don’t know why my entries have been revolving around employment and leadership the last couple weeks but here I go again….

I happened across a brief article on BoardSource about assessing an organization’s chief executive. As the piece points out, boards go to great pains in the interview process to ensure they are hiring the most capable candidate but rarely set up a formal process by which they can regularly provide feedback.

There are going to be periods of high emotion when the chief executive is either being patted on the back or glared at. Waiting until these times to assess a person is not the most constructive for the chief executive’s development and growth, even if one has a positive impression of them.

I should note that the article I linked to partially consists of instructions of how to set up a review process using the assessment tool BoardSource has developed. I generally try to avoid hawking other peoples services specifically if they aren’t fairly inexpensive. But having sat on many boards and attended meetings of boards of which I was not a member, I can attest to the number of meetings some boards will take parsing the language on simple amendments to the governing rules. It might take years for a board to draw up an assessment instrument.

BoardSource has an assessment tool that can be completed on a print version or online by board members. Their questions at the very least provide a strong starting point if the board feels the need for a more customized questionnaire.

That said, the online tool while time saving and convenient on a number of fronts is also 4 1/2 times more expensive than the print version. Unless it allows 5-10 years of usage, it seems excessively expensive to process the assessment of a single person. Human Resource professionals can probably speak on the reasonableness of the cost better than I. I understand they need to recoup their investment in developing it, but if it were the only option available, I am sure the cost would present an even greater impediment to evaluating a chief executive for many boards.

For most boards, whether they know about the assessment tools or not, it can be easier to promise a chief executive a similar amount of money as a bonus next year if they improve or as a raise if the valued person stays than to invest weeks completing, collecting and collating an evaluation. Given the salaries and bonuses for profit CEOs are granted by their boards, it wouldn’t be surprising if non-profit boards perceived money as the medium by which rewards and severance are conducted.

Why Do You Want To Leave Your Job?

by

Neill Archer Roan doesn’t write as often as I would like him to, but when he does, it is always worth reading. Apropos to my entry last week about how I suspected turnover in nonprofits was having a greater negative impact than organizations were letting on, Neill quotes a gentleman named Matthew Kelly on the core reasons for turnover.

“The #1 reason people leave a job is not because they have a dysfunctional relationship with their manager or because they don’t feel appreciated. They leave because they cannot see the connection between the work they are doing today and the future they imagine for themselves.”

Now given that I have had those exact same thoughts verbatim when I was considering leaving a job and until this morning believed I was the pretty much the only one who did, I felt an obligation to quote it. While I haven’t always liked my bosses and certainly felt under appreciated, it wasn’t enough to make me want to leave. Others I have worked with have said, and occasionally fumed, they were leaving because of bosses, under appreciation, lack of pay and work environment.

I always thought I was atypical for having “pictured something different for myself as a primary reason for moving on. Frankly, next to “the boss is a bastard,” it seems like pretty weak motivation. If the boss isn’t a jerk and things aren’t overly oppressive, why would anyone want to move on?

Probably because the boss is a jerk is a more convincing reason than I want more self-actualization and so the boss gets blamed a lot more often than he/she should because nobody has the guts to admit they want more fulfillment. People expect fulfillment from their spouses and low cal, low fat brownies, work is supposed to be dispiriting, endured and complained about. I want more from my job sounds whiny in comparison.

Interestingly enough, about 10 years ago I was attending a customer service seminar. The woman leading it quoted stats showing that quality of product being equal, people don’t defect to a competitor because they are cheaper, that is just the easiest excuse to use. Kelly’s message seems to be quite similar.

While I wouldn’t be surprised to learn a little consumer mentality has crept into how we approach our jobs over the last decade, I suspect that this unspoken motivation has been lurking below the surface for a long while now.

I will say that was I a little disappointed with the way Kelly’s piece ended. It started out being damn interesting and thought provoking but ended with a him encouraging people to follow their dreams which just seemed de rigeur motivational speaking.

So You Think You Are An Emerging Leader…

by

…or maybe there is someone you think is.

Arts Presenters is soliciting applications for participants at the next Emerging Leader Institute being held at conference January 2008.

Deadline is next Monday though. I am sorry I didn’t see the announcement on the website sooner. The application may be found here and the guidelines here. There are some nice benefits like free APAP membership for a year and free conference admission if you are a first time attendee. You do have to be affiliated with a member entity- presenter, artist, agency, etc.

I attended last year (which you can read about here and here), and found the experience enjoyable and valuable.

In fact, I had a conference call today with some other alumni of the program to discuss steps we would like to take to improve the experience for both new attendees and alumni both at the conference and after they return home. This is an effort that had its impetus with the alumni of the program who wish to have the emerging issues facing arts leaders addressed and planned for. And to develop a network of support.

Frankly, if I have my druthers, I’d want whatever network of support is developed opened to all arts people be they members of the organization or not.

But that could be many years down the road. In the meantime, if you are interested in the program, apply!

Ushering — Destroyer of Souls!

by

I was listening to the latest entry from the Cool As Hell Theatre podcast while reviewing the financials from last month when both the host and the interviewee began talking about how ushering in return for admission was demeaning and soul killing (around 13:00). I actually backed the audio up and listened and then did so again when I got home.

I am not quite sure what Nick Olivero objection to the practice is, especially since the show his company is producing apparently is all about the whole labor for money for goods exchange.

Of course, this is the show the company is doing free of charge so their whole point about the labor-cash exchange might go in a different direction. However, since they praise Starbucks for giving everyone benefits and talk about how their company is paying performers more and more each year, I can’t think that they damn the process too much.

The lead in to the criticism of ushering is that Nick, being dirt poor, feels it is important to offer performances for free because the only way he has been able to see shows otherwise has been to usher. Then he and host, Michael Rice, start talking about how demeaning and soul killing it is.

I acknowledge that the situation of being so poor that you can’t afford a ticket to a show can be demeaning. So the fact that you have to split your attention between the show and seating patron, scowling at cell phone users and tracking down video tapers when you could be focusing entirely on the performance can be depressing. But the forces which shape this reality are external to the theatre’s see the show for free policy.

The alternatives are to ask people to usher and not see the show or pay people to usher in which case the management may have greater expectations of the ushers which would preclude the opportunity to see the show. One of my paid staff or I watch the lobby so our volunteer ushers can see the show. If I were paying them, I would expect them to be in the lobby far longer in order to serve late comers.

But in the interests of understanding this point of view, if anyone can offer some insight into where they are coming from, I would appreciate knowing.

Thinking about this issue got me reminiscing about a time early in my career when I learned that some of our core volunteers were actually working the arts organization circuit. I was crushed since we obviously offered a superior artistic product to the other guys and went to a lot of effort to treat our volunteers well. I felt the cuckold.

This was back in the days when I believed that all one had to do was produce good work and the public, as enthusiastic about the arts as I was, would flock to the door. Frankly, I think there may have been more truth to that sentiment then than now.

But those volunteers were having a wonderful time in their retirement being involved with a number of arts organizations and seeing lots of good stuff. I have a good group of those type of people volunteering for me right now as well as those who want to do the least they can for the greatest opportunity to see a show.

Except for a couple high school students, I don’t really have any passionate young artistic types who can’t afford to buy tickets to the performances. Perhaps I am still possessed of naivety, but sincerity counts a lot for me. In many respects, I would rather have an entranced student letting things fall through the cracks as the weakest member of the volunteer team than a person completing tasks with the least effort required to gain admittance.

Something Vicious This Way Comes

by

January 2007 its coming was foretold and a great moan of despair did issue from the people while others cheered and hailed the arrival of the dread behemoth. Many tried to scurry from its path and have just now recognized their failure now as the shadow of the mighty beast falls upon them.

Now cometh the king….

The LION KING!!!!!!

Last week the Honolulu Advertiser ran a story about the impact The Lion King, which opens in two weeks, is having on the local arts community. Back when Phantom of the Opera came to town, the seats at many theatres were pretty much empty.

Having learned from the past, many organizations started scrambling as soon as the rumors started gained credence. Hearing the performance hall would be occupied, the symphony shifted to another venue and the local school which stages a two day holiday extravaganza started making other plans. The annual Nutcracker production lucked out by having the Broadway tour end just before their scheduled performance.

Many of the other performing arts organizations are experiencing ill effects already. Said one theatre manager “It’s scary, terrible. We moved up our production (from an original October play date) hoping to avoid overlap with ‘The Lion King.’ In retrospect, it would have made little difference…”I keep hearing ‘We bought our “Lion King” tickets and we’re broke,…'”

One group has seen a rise in season subscriptions and other has seen a drop though they attribute that to getting their brochure out late. One group is hoping to fill the house by offering what the Lion King can’t–alcohol during a performance. The group plans to perform two shows in cabaret style and offer a standard drink with the show.

A number of those quoted in the article thought their might be a trickle down effect with people getting excited enough by the show that they would buy ticket to the local performances some time in the next two years. There was no mention if theatres saw a surge in the years after Phantom.

I wonder then if it is wishful thinking as one of those optimistic about a trickle down is also quoted as saying most of those who attend the Broadway series aren’t regular theatre goers. The intent of his sentence was to state what I am sure is his mistaken belief that those who enjoy musicals at his theatre won’t join non-attendees in exhausting their discretionary income at The Lion King.

He also inadvertently points out the reason why his theatre probably won’t enjoy a significant attendance increase from trickle down in the near future– most of the people attending the Lion King aren’t disposed to attend live performances. If people there were a trickle down effect from attending a Broadway show, the regional and local arts scene would be exploding as a result of all the bus tours motoring their way to Broadway and Las Vegas.

For most of those attending, The Lion King is an infrequent treat they give themselves and their family. Even though they could all attend a local performance for what a single ticket to the Broadway show costs, that isn’t part of their regular practice and may never be unless they know someone in the cast.

So how do things stand for my theatre you wonder? Well we haven’t gone on sale yet because we are just making last minute tweaks to a new ticket system. My first show doesn’t open until a month after The Lion King does. This might not work in my favor since the buzz about the Disney show will probably reach its apex about that time and fuel additional ticket sales.

Unlike those who were interviewed for the newspaper article, my theatre doesn’t produce Broadway musicals so we are at least offering an alternative to that. Our season is also weighted with more shows in the Spring. Now whether there is going to be a enough disposable income around after the Lion King and the holiday season are finished is anyone’s guess.

As much as I criticize the trickle down view as naive, there really is no other way to approach the situation but to be optimistic. Doom and gloom isn’t going to help. Finding the ways to pitch your strengths over your competition is standard business practice. In some ways, we local arts organizations aren’t in much different a position than video game manufacturers who face a competitor rolling out a new console just in time for Christmas. Often they time the release of some new exciting game to show the value of the established game systems. We each have to figure out what our version of that practice will be.

Leadership Training Trends

by

I didn’t intend to have a number of entries this week wherein I talked about other blogs but I was visiting the Americans for the Arts website checking on something related to their recent Arts. Ask for More campaign when I caught sight of their blog and decided to take a gander.

They had a number of people attending blogging about their experience at the Americans for the Arts national conference in Las Vegas this past week. There were a couple entries on the blog about leadership training that caught my attention.

The first was from John Arroyo:

“I began to think of this idea and wondered if whether or not we are overdoing it in the leadership field. There are so many institutes and workshops at all levels, but if we truly believe that leaders are self-identified and not tied to a title, when is it over stimulation?”

He goes on to talk about how leadership can be exhibited on all levels and for many an Executive Director position is no longer an ultimate career goal. This partially echoes some of what was being said in the Emerging Leadership program I attended at the Arts Presenters conference. I begin to wonder if there is an interesting shift in thinking and attitude transpiring nationally.

The other entry that caught my eye came from a time prior to the convention from Chad Baumann, Director of Marketing and Communications for AFTA and writer of Arts Marketing blog. In his entry on Artsblog, he cites a recent story noting that the MFA will become the new MBA as the economy increasingly orients toward creativity and expresses some concern about the emphasis the training programs might take.

“As more people compare the pros and cons of the MFA vs. MBA, I only have one major fear: that the MFA will become too business oriented. Arts organizations in the past have been criticized for having managers who didn’t come from business backgrounds. Many have made the argument that arts organizations suffer because they are lead by artists, not business professionals. I have the opposite fear.

“…I hope that most MFA programs in arts administration provide the necessary business training, but keep at the forefront what makes their students valuable-their artistic and creative abilities. Creativity is the commodity that is in high demand”

Seek Thy Successors!

by

Given rising concerns in the arts industry about the lack of succession planning and dearth of qualified people to assume organizational reins when the current leadership retires, I thought a recent piece on the Chronicle of Higher Education on recruitment had some relevance.

The article is mainly aimed at academic departments looking for faculty but there are some basic ideas that are good places to start when analyzing one’s search and hiring practices in any profession. Books on the topic may ultimately be more helpful, but reading the article may also make you realize you need to consult those books.

The core focus is on recruitment for positions rather than just advertising them and waiting for people to apply. The author, Gary A. Olson, who is dean of Arts and Sciences at Illinois State University, suggests disseminating information in discipline specific journals and online forums.

The most labor and resource intensive option he suggests is letters soliciting nominations and applications for the position, the more personal, sincere and un-form letter like, the better. Before you dismiss this out of hand as something only big businesess might do, I received two such letters for arts management jobs in the last six months. One was for an executive level position, the other middle management. If it weren’t for the fact that I had no desire to be involved in either field, I might have considered applying. More to the point, active recruiting efforts in the performing arts are out there and the practice is likely to become more prevalent.

Something that I would not have really considered which Olson says is mandatory if you really want to sell the position is the creation of a website exclusively devoted to the search.

“Effective sites will contain more than a position statement and a list of committee members. The objective here is to make the site useful for the candidate, not the committee. The search site should contain links to sites that will best promote the institution and the community, so the key question to ask in constructing a site is, “‘If I were a first-time visitor to the institution, what information would help me understand what I might be getting into were I to accept a position here?'”

Olson also cautions against various self-destructive practices like succumbing to the desire to grill, rather than woo, a candidate; airing organizational dirty laundry; extending poor hospitality and failing to search for solutions in final negotiations for the position.

What I hope not to see, however, is the emergence of recruiting practices similar to those connected with musical directors in the orchestra world where a very small group of big name people are wooed by multiple organizations to the exclusion of all others. That will only serve to exacerbate the panic over succession. (Unless I happen to emerge as a member of that small group, in which case it sounds like a grand idea.)

Leader, Manage Thy Self

by

Are you a listener or a reader? If you don’t have any idea what I am talking about, you may want to take a look at Peter Drucker’s “Managing Oneself,” an article that has been reprinted in the Harvard Business Review a number of times. I first got my hands on it at the Arts Presenters Emerging Leadership Institute in January and have read it about three or four times since then. (It is only 11 pages long.)

As one might imagine from the title, the main thrust of the article deals with self-examination as a way of self-improvement. What he suggests isn’t a “12 Easy Steps to a Better You” program. If anything, he believes trying to adopt another’s practices is likely to make you miserable. He also observes that people often think they know what their strengths and weaknesses are but are usually wrong. (So if you are miserable in your current position, read it!)

In addition to knowing ones strengths and weakness, he feels it is important for people to know how they perform. That is where the whole reader or listener question comes in along with learning how one learns, what environments one thrives most in and what ones values are. Then, given your knowledge about how you best operate in relation to these factors, what is it you can contribute? Drucker gives a number of interesting examples of how men like Patton, JFK, Eisenhower and Churchill were hampered by situations which emphasized their weaker areas.

Once you have obtained this self-knowledge, Drucker urges you to recognize that everyone around you is an individual operating in varying degrees to the same criteria, have different ways of achieving success and therefore need different things from you to realize that success.

“Whenever someone goes to his or her associates and says, “This is what I am good at. This is how I work. These are my values. This is the contribution I plan to concentrate on and the results I should be expected to deliver,” the response is always, “This is most helpful. But why didn’t you tell me earlier?”

And one gets the same reaction – without exception, in my experience-if one continues by asking, “And what do I need to know about your strengths, how you perform, your values, and your proposed contribution?” In fact, knowledge workers should request this of everyone with whom they work, whether as subordinate, superior, colleague, or team member. And again, whenever this is done, the reaction is always, “Thanks for asking me. But why didn’t you ask me earlier?” Organizations are no longer built on force but on trust. The existence of trust between people does not necessarily mean that they like one another. It means that they understand one another.”

Yes, I know there is a certain irony in expecting people who don’t learn best by reading to gain maximum benefit of Drucker’s message through reading.

The Bionic Theatre Manager

by

I have been away for a few days, thus the lack of postings on my usual schedule. My thoughts have not been far from arts management though so I offer up the following article on the dearth of qualified theatre managers which appeared in the January 2007 American Theatre. The article was scanned and posted by Brooklyn College so some portions of the text may not be completely legible.

Jim Volz echoes the concerns I heard at the Arts Presenters conference regarding succession planning. The primary aim of the piece is to examine the academic and non-academic paths to executive level leadership of theatres. There are a lot of people worried about the lack of highly skilled leaders coming up the ranks to replace those who retire or are lured away.

The shortage of savvy, experienced theatre managers is evidenced by the number of long time managing directors of flagship regional theatres…who have been recently been recruited away or have played musical chairs with other theatres. Oftentimes, there’s a demoralizing institutional toll (that’s seldom talked about) when management leaders leave their theatres; this definitely has a snowball (or avalanche) effect on the board and the remaining personnel…

…Tired of the turnover and dealing with what many consider the “two-headed monster,” many boards turn to an already beleaguered artistic director to run the whole show.”

While sexier areas of acting and directing lure many people of a theatrical bent away from management, the elements Volz and many quoted in the article blame for the shortage of quality managers is that other profit and non-profit endeavors promise better pay and quality of life. Though managers are hardly alone since actors, directors and technicians all experience the same scenario.

A debate that appears throughout the article is whether academic training is necessary for success. Like the Bionic Man I allude to in my title, people can’t decide what needs to be implanted by others to make you strong and what muscles one can develop by oneself. Everyone seems to agree that practical experience is an absolute. There is an implication in the comments of some (perhaps due to the way they were quoted) that academic training may not be necessary at all.

My personal view is that formal classroom training in legal matters-contracts, accounting, human resources– can avoid a lot of serious trouble in the future. Formal training in personnel relations and conflict resolution practices can avoid a lot of heartbreak and resentment in a field where high pressure, long hours and low pay can breed a great deal of both. I can speak from experience that instruction in writing and graphic design elements won’t make people into good writers. But unless you are possessed of talent and discipline, you probably won’t be offered a paid opportunity to hone your skills with experience.

It only makes sense that if you were teaching someone all these skills, you would place it in the context of theatrical practice with courses on that very subject. There is a high likelihood, after all, that a theatre manager may wear the hats of marketer, bookkeeper, personnel director, programmer and graphic designer. So in my opinion, an academic program with opportunities for good practical experiences can be a real value for a fledgling manager.

One thing that many in the article agreed upon is that managers of the future need to be possessed of management skills and artistic vision. Given that the article mentions managers don’t have the time to mentor subordinates or even each other and the report on the field that Neill Archer Roan presented to Arts Presenters said that managers rarely found the time to review and assess articles on the latest research and theory, the only place a manager is likely to acquire these skills is in a formal training program.

In reality, the proficiency that really needs to be acquired is flexible thinking. As students were taking classes to master the classes of an academic program, they should be constantly challenged to assess emerging situations in arts, entertainment in the world as a whole. The act of evaluation should be second nature by the time a student emerges from a program.

While I obviously think people should possess solid training in all the skill and knowledge areas I mention above, John McCann of Virgina Tech is singing my song in the article when he is quoted as saying-

“Today’s focus is preparing folk to manage and lead yesterday’s organizations…The solution, McCann believes, is to “focus more on leadership competencies and less on functional management training-challenge young potential leaders to be creative, intuitive and open to new ideas.”

Joe Patti's Musings on practical solutions for Arts Management

/ Find It!

/ Recent Comments

Butts In The Seats by Joe Patti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
LinkedIn