Home Page

Civic Reflection

October 27, 2004

by:

Joe Patti

An interesting website came to my attention today regarding a practice called Civic Reflection. According to the website, it is “is reading, thinking and talking with each other about our life in community and three fundamental human activities that nourish that life: giving, serving, and leading.”

Looking over the website, I am not quite sure how this practice will help nonprofits and other civic groups more effectively than some other sort of meeting or retreat. The group claims it does. I have a suspicion that its value is in the fact that the practice addresses problems obliquely and doesn’t allow people to set an agenda where blame is handed out and solutions sought.

The website addresses this:

Initially, out of habit, people often think of a problem they want to fix. How can we diversify our boards? How can we get people to give more? These are good questions, but civic reflection is not intended to answer them. It will not tell people “how to” do anything. What civic reflection can do is help participants explore the “what” and “why” -the assumptions, struggles and hopes underneath their questions-deepening their own imaginations and mutual understanding in the process. When people pose “how to” questions (How can we lead the community through change?), listen for the “what” and “why” questions underneath (What leads us to change? Why do we fear change?).

I was initially a bit skeptical about how valuable this process might be to a non-profit given that time constraints don’t normally allow for conversations whose purpose is not to find solutions. In thinking about it, I wondered though if some of the problems non-profits face spring from an Us and Them anxiety– Will they fund us, will they ask me for a donation, will they like our show, will I like/understand this show.

The purpose of this practice seems to be to make everyone Us by removing these barriers and making everyone talk about something else like the human condition in hopes of people developing an empathy and understanding of one another.

The importance of removing these barriers to understanding are found in their FAQ section.

Should there be separate discussions for donors and fundraisers to keep the conversation from getting “awkward”?

No, as long as the ground rules for the conversation are clear. It is imperative to state at the outset that -This is a fundraising-free zone: There will be no solicitations-and no pledge card at the end! With that rule in place, civic reflection can allow a rare and needed conversation to take place across the funding divide. It can help donors and fundraisers to talk with one another about the profound complexities of giving and receiving and to develop greater understanding of their shared work.

Should there be separate discussions for trustees and staff? Executive and other staff?

Again, this is a rare opportunity to build conversation across dividing lines about the purposes of an organization-and to help staff and trustees come to know each other in a fuller way as persons. Therefore, staff should be included if possible. At the same time, it is unwise to allow the executive director of an organization to handpick participants among senior staff. All staff at the same level of responsibility should be invited. (But be neither surprised nor dismayed if not everyone accepts.)

It all sounds great in theory, but I would think it would be difficult for a non-profit to find the time and energy to devote to something like this on a regular basis. People tend to want to walk into and out of a meeting/retreat with answers and a plan of action.

In business like relationships, people’s desire to understand the other guy tends to start and end at the point they do or don’t get what they want. People tend to only want to know things that they think will help them do their jobs and discard/ignore those things that typically won’t help. (The website implies though that knowing these other facts can enhance a business relationship.)

Perhaps we are conditioned into this behavior by TV programs that wrap up problems within the confines of a time period and by technology which allows us to access information and goods round the clock. Opened ended contemplation can seem to be more of an amusing luxury than immediate value.

The website says that the fear that the practice is a waste of time is one of the 3 main impediments to participation. The other two are “They fear that they are not ‘smart’ enough, especially if they did not enjoy literature classes in school. They fear that they will be manipulated emotionally for the purposes of the group.” The implication being, don’t knock it til you sincerely try it.

I would be interested to learn if anyone has tried Civic Reflection in any forum, be it non-profit or other, and what your impressions were. Let me know.

General Musings

1 Comment

More Built to Fail

October 26, 2004

by:

Joe Patti

It occurs to me that my suggestions in my entry yesterday didn’t really solve the problem of arts organizations feeling forced in to professionalizing their organization. My suggestions really were only applicable for organizations who had just started out and didn’t have their own theatre space.

What happens if you are a member of a theatre group that was started back in the early part of the 20th century as part of the Little Theatre movement? Even if your only ambition is to be a resource for the community and the kids in the neighborhood and provide them with a place they can express themselves artisitical on weekends and after school, you face some problems.

Back when your theatre was formed, the community was more focussed on itself. Businesses were run by people you knew and they could be easily approached about supporting you. Now it is all corporate owned. Chances are you don’t know the community giving officer when you approach a company and probably won’t have much contact with them outside of your project. Chances are also about even that they may not be the community giving officer next year when you go back for an annual appeal.

Banks used to be owned locally and focussed locally as well. Now your bank can easily change names 3 times in five years as they merge and get bought out. Instead of dealing with a local person, you end up sending grant donations in to a corporate office in Delaware or perhaps a regional headquarters.

Instead of talking to someone about giving you a donation and having them stop back to see the results, now you have to fill out all sorts of paper work and are judged heavily on your persuasive writing skills. If you are given a grant, you then have to follow up with more forms typically backed up with survey data to show how you served X number of people or improved the lives of folks in the community.

All these things require you to be organized to such a degree that the move to having a professional staff take care of it rather than shuffling paperwork between committee members homes seems like a logical step.

Only now you find that the people funding you are interested in doing a lot of bragging about how many school children they serve and they want to get as much bang for thier buck so the place that says they can serve 4000 kids for a 10,000 donation is a better investment than a place that does a really great job serving 400.

Then you discover you need to have matching funds. So for the $10,000 you want, you need to raise $10-20,000 from another source, be it donations or earned income. So then there is more effort to expend organizing, tracking and reporting for other grants/donations or ticket income.

It is all a pain in the ass, but you are really dedicated to providing support to the community, so much so that you will start doing things you never initially envisioned in order to make yourself attractive to granting organizations. Some of it is really great and rewarding, but you are getting tired so you bring on more people to help you out.

Now you see how easy it is get into a situation where your organization is overbuilt as the Artful Manager referred to. You get into a position where you are focussing on preserving funding to things you aren’t interested in doing simply so you can divert some resources to the things you are. But you aren’t fulfilling your original purpose well because you are distracted by the effort of keeping all the other balls in the air. (And by the way, by this point you are talking about every arts organization.)

I can really see how expectations in today’s environment can really put a lot of pressure on organizations to professionalize. I can’t see any viable solutions. In an age where governments are dissolving arts councils, I can’t see foundations and businesses tasking more employees to going out and getting to know their communities to the point where donations can be made on a handshake.

I absolutely think there is a need for accountability and recordkeeping so that businesses know where their money is going and how it is being spent. Unless a company or foundation is going to have their employees travel around collecting support materials, pictures, etc from small arts organizations and then fill out the paperwork themselves to take the burden off the arts, I have a tough time imagining an alternative at this time.

Management Philosophy

No Comments

Built to Fail?

October 25, 2004

by:

Joe Patti

Some real interesting reading over at Artful Manager these days. I am especially interested in the feedback he is getting regarding his statement that the arts are overbuilt.

Today’s entry has comments from one of his readers about how community arts organizations might be feeling pressure to professionalize their operations.

“More generally, it seems to me, anecdotally, that our industry has pushed professionalism (by which I mean professionally structured non-profit orgs) as an indicator of quality and sustainability, leading amateur (some community theatres for example) organizations to professionalize without need, causing undo strain on the organizations, and diverting and spreading thin available arts and culture funding that feels compelled to support professional level organizations. ”

In the past I have mentioned that all arts organizations don’t have a god given right to exist, nor should they automatically expect to be funded. (Which admittedly is hard to accept when you are going through hours of grant writing.) I never really thought about the fact that these folks might be affected by subtle pressure to professionalize.

There are “rewards” as it were, for professionalizing an operation. You can get larger grants and donations (and the burden of tracking and reporting), you get the prestige of being recognized as professional, including willingness of newspapers to cover your events (though that happens with less frequency these days). Of course, there are increased expectations as the writer mentions that put a great deal of pressure on the organization.

The thing is, you can be really successful doing amateur work. Groups rent out my theatre all the time and present absolutely awful shows. But much to my chagrin, they have larger audiences than my regular season shows do because of word of mouth to friends and family. People don’t see great theatre, but they leave with a sense of joy having seen a loved one.

The group just has to be organized enough to organize a show, get themselves to the theatre and open the show on time, not oversell the house and then take their belongings with them when they leave. As long as they pay me, they have no further worries. I have to handle the water and power, maintain instruments, gather supplies, clean the theatre, worry about budgets, bugs, equipment failure. We supply the technical knowledge for running a show and processing an audience.

The theatre is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year and we have had 4-5 groups who have been doing annual events like this at the theatre for at least 25 of those years.

The problem might be as alluded to in The Cluetrain Manifesto that Artful Manager listed earlier last week–businesses take themselves too seriously. People who started out doing art to have fun suddenly decide they need to organize and get some respect for the work they do.

This, of course, is bad for everyone involved because audiences don’t need to have their introduction to an art form be at the hands of really awful performers looking for strangers to repeat the sentiments of friends and family that they have talent. If you admit you are not that good but have fun doing it, that is one thing, but if you believe that everyone shares your mother’s opinion about how talented you are and should fund you, that is another.

Now, to be fair, the professionals in a given performance field suffer the same malady. If you have read my blog on a regular basis, you will see that much is true. They can have a tendency to get too serious and believe that everyone ought to pay a premium for what they are offering because it is good for them.

Therefore, it is difficult for me to say this with any absolute certainty, but…running arts organizations by and large should be left to the professionals. If anyone should be making a mess of the arts, it should be people who have the resources and training to do it full time. Botching things up is not an appropriate activity for people who can only devote themselves to it part time.

But seriously, as many poor decisions are made by arts administrators, they are still better equip in many instances to do thing in a quality manner. When they endeavor to do something with the patina of professionalism, they have the experience and knowledge to anticipate the implications of decisions in ways amateurs don’t.

The comparison has been made to death, I know, but in many ways arts and sports are similar in this respect. People go to a Little League or soccer game with their kids and forget its all about the fun and socializing, drinking lemonade and enjoying the weather. There is such an expectation that their kids perform like professional players and that the volunteer referees be infallible, that the game get forced into pretending to be something it can never become.

This isn’t completely analogous of course. There is a better chance of a theatre evolving into a successful professional house than there is of a kid becoming a professional athlete. (Freddy Adu notwithstanding) In many cases, it is probably better to just let kids be kids and amateur arts organizations just have fun doing what they founded to do.

Audience Relations

No Comments

Beware the Agent!

October 19, 2004

by:

Joe Patti

So, a little cautionary tale to relate here about agents, artists and presenters. I had the experience where an agent didn’t return an executed contract after having it for 4 months. I made a couple calls to prod them to send the contract which was for a performance 2 months hence telling them I couldn’t process a check request without it.

A few weeks go by and I start advancing the show with the performers and mention the same thing. Turns out the performer had recently left the agent because of poor service like this, but unfortunately, since we started the contract with them, we had to continue. (And by the way, when I first called to bug them about sending the contract, the agent directed me to the new agency who then took a while to realize I didn’t have a contract through them.)
I explain how my ability to pay them will be hampered by not having the contract.

Five- six weeks out the agent calls and tells me they don’t have a piece of the contract so I rush the material to them hoping to expedite the process of getting the contract back. (In the meantime, they are calling for ticket counts three times a week) A month out, I speak with the performers again extending my dire warning. They give me another number to call and bug about the contract which I do.

Two and half weeks out, the performer calls in frantically because the agent who has had the stupid contract for 6 months now apparently hasn’t read it in all this time and makes a mistake about the agreed upon fee. I call the agent to clarify matters and she encourages me to send the deposit in (I have started intoning my warning about not being able to pay them now because I have said it so frequently of late.) A week or so out, the performers finally get the contract rush through signing it and filling out the required materials and though they aren’t supposed to, send a copy of the contract to me and return a copy to the agent.

Unfortunately, it is really too late to send the paperwork through in the normal manner. However, the performers’ rep threatens that they won’t show up if I can’t guarantee I can have the check for them. I don’t blame the performers for not wanting to risk their cash flow by having to wait for a check to come a week or so after they perform, but all the same, we sent the contract in nearly 7 months before at this point.

To make matters worse, the agent has pretty much crossed out half the contract, including the Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity clauses which tend to be something that state governments are sensitive about. They didn’t technically apply to this situation, but still at the time, I didn’t know if it would go through the system swiftly or not. It would be tough enough to push it through without those potential stumbling blocks.

I spent a day chasing people around campus, calling secretaries and assistants asking to be alerted when people got out of meetings and requesting that the person in question not be allowed to leave their own office. (These folks are the ones that really run an institution as everyone knows!)

Somehow I managed to get all the approvals I needed and get the checks processed. However, it is a cautionary tale about the performing arts. Here was a situation that wasn’t my fault in the least and that I warned about in many instances, yet it was made my problem nonetheless.

There is little recourse for either me or the performer against the big agency. The performers can’t threaten to take their business elsewhere, they already have, and the agency is so big, they really don’t care if I never do business with them again.

We actually had a letter of warning that we sent back with the contracts 7 months prior warning about this as well. There doesn’t seem to really be a solution to this for the future other than to become the greasy wheel and call the agent everyday starting a month or so out if the contract hasn’t been received.

I know that I said nice things about agents that I met at the WAA conference. They were mostly folks who were in small to medium size agencies and were interested in keeping good relations with everyone involved. This wasn’t my first dealings with the behemoth agencies, but it was the worst indeed.

State of the Arts

No Comments