Home Page

Social Status: Where Cold Rises and Warmth Flows Down

March 28, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

I was really intrigued by the results of a recent study coming out of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs that shows “managers play down their competence to appear warmer to their subordinates while the subordinates hide their own warmth in an effort to appear more competent.”

According to the researchers, because people are uncomfortable with discussing/acknowledging the differences in social status in the workplace, they tend to match a stereotypical image they have of the other person in an attempt to connect by trying to act against the stereotypical image of their own status.

Past studies have shown that managers are typically seen as competent and cold, while lower-status employees may be seen as warm, but not entirely competent.

[…]

“In doing this, people might actually talk past each other, making people have more of an awkward misunderstanding,” said Jillian Swencionis, lead author and doctoral candidate in psychology and social policy at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

[…]

The stereotypes people hold about others may not necessarily be true, so when they’re trying to ‘match’ the other person, they’re matching what they think the other person is like. These kinds of diverging impression management strategies may be one reason for misunderstandings or otherwise awkward situations people have in these interactions,” Swencionis said.

The researchers intend to do the same study with students in higher and lower ranked universities to see if they get similar results.

The study made me wonder if the same thing might be in operation in the arts.

Do arts organization personnel who interact with audience members and donors they perceive as higher status try to mirror a stereotype they hold about the patron, but end up making a poor impression?
Do audience members of lower social status do something similar when they feel they are interacting with other audience members, staff and perhaps artists that are of higher status?
What about in the opposite direction, do audience members, donors and staff who perceive themselves of higher status change their behavior when they are interacting with people of lower status?
What are the stereotypes each seeks to embody about the other? Do people of lower status in an arts environment try to appear reserved, refined and educated when dealing with someone of higher status?
Do people of higher status make an effort to be enthusiastic, effusive, warmer and solicitous when dealing with someone of lower status?

Does any of this contribute to/reinforce the image of the uncultured poseur vs. the snooty and condescending? Those trying to embody higher status stereotypes may come off as inauthentic and trying too hard. Those trying to be warm and welcoming to people of a lower status may come off as condescending.

As the Princeton researchers note, competence and warmth are not mutually exclusive traits (nor are incompetence and cold personalities). These are all interesting questions to think about and to observe in our own behavior in respect to employee and audience intra-actions and interactions.

Audience Relations, General Musings, Terms and Ideas

No Comments

Can Non-Profit Arts Orgs Be Better Friends?

March 23, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

Seth Godin recently posted that it is good to share our “give up goals,” the things we are going to give up in order to improve ourselves. The idea is that if we backslide, our friends will keep us honest.

On the other hand, he says, common wisdom encourages us to keep our “go up” goals a secret:

Don’t tell them you intend to get a promotion, win the race or be elected prom king. That’s because even your friends get jealous, or insecure on your behalf, or afraid of the change your change will bring.

Here’s the thing: If that’s the case, you need better friends.

This came to mind today during a conference call when someone mentioned that while some arts groups are good about collaborating with others on planning to their mutual benefit, many are very proprietary about discussing their performance seasons.

I don’t know why groups would take this approach. I am 90% certain that a comment I made to a colleague last December helped sufficiently firm up the routing of a touring group we are presenting next year. The tour might not have come together or it may have been more expensive had I not discussed what groups we were looking at.

Yesterday, even though it wasn’t covered by the radius clause in our contract, I got an email advising me a group would be performing in the region six months prior to our date and asking if we had any issues. Again, we didn’t really have any basis upon which to object, but the our relationship with the artist and agent is such that they were sincerely ready to take our concerns into consideration.

Right now I am working on a capacity building grant that encompasses two other arts organizations in the community.

I can understand where organizations might feel protective of donors and funding sources. Funders will decide they have invested enough in a certain geographic region. Mergers and shifting priorities among businesses and foundations or even the emergence of more non-profits in the area can result in dwindling funding capacity and willingness.

But in terms of being reticent to talk about your general “go up” goals of growth and doing exciting things, I agree with Godin, we need better friends.

As much as I grind my teeth every time I read about how millennials are wonderful and everyone should devote slavish attention to them, I will say that I would welcome their reputed tendency toward collaboration.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying organizational leadership should leapfrog Gen X.

Clearly, GenXers are wiser, more grounded, intelligent, attractive, funny, capable, sexy, sweeter smelling, awesomer unicorns (get the shirt!) than Millennials. (Not to mention, I think many possess the requisite collaborative mindset.)

I just feel that the presence of Millennials who value collaboration and meaning in the work they do can have a positive influence in shifting the outlook of some arts organizations in a positive direction.

Leadership, Management Philosophy, State of the Arts, Working In The Arts

1 Comment

When The Tenors Are Sixers At Best

March 22, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

My interest was recently piqued when I read a piece in The Economist which reported that two opera conservatories in Sweden declined to admit male singers because they were not up to standard.

The conservatory decided that even though it would make for skewed student productions, it could not admit male singers on the grounds of gender alone. The Gothenburg University College of Opera has found itself in a similar position. Of the 45 singers who auditioned this year, nine were men, but as the Dean of Studies Monica Danielsson tells Prospero, “none of them reached the level of admission”. Consequently, none of them won a place.

As a comparison, the article cited Indiana University Jacobs School of Music which,

…receives a similar ratio of female to male applicants. But unlike Swedish conservatories, the school admits a weighted student body. In effect, sopranos have to score much higher marks to gain admission. “We have to strive for a balance between the voice parts,” explains Professor Mary Ann Hart, chair of the school’s voice department. “You can teach singers repertoire but at an opera school, at some point, they have to act on stage.”

It should be noted that there is no mention about whether the men admitted to Indiana are up to standard or not, only that there is much more competition among women than men due to the ratio of applicants.

I have never really viewed myself as much of an activist when it comes to the subject of the gender imbalance in arts job opportunities. But I feel that whether what is happening in Sweden is isolated or indicative of a trend, it bears attention.

When the argument a male is more highly qualified evaporates and the criteria for admitting or casting a male is based on a piece written hundreds of years ago needing one, it is probably past time to start creating new works with more roles for women.

When it comes to the performing arts, I am always going to lean toward high level of skill as a criteria. Arts careers are difficult to pursue so if someone only has the capacity to be mediocre at the end of their training, they shouldn’t be lead to believe they can compete at a high level. If the guys can’t meet an objective measure of this ability, then it may be for the best if they are cut.

Is it fair to women who entered the conservatory at 8 striving to raise their proficiency 9 if they are forced to perform beside a man who operates at 6 and was admitted so that a performance could be mounted?

Admittedly this is a tricky question. Working alongside others who force you to bring your best everyday is important. Yet as the professor at Indiana says, practical experience, not theory, is the ultimate goal of the training. Right now the male voice is needed for that purpose when it comes to opera.

This isn’t just an issue with opera, musical theater and acting programs, with some exceptions, face a similar ratio of female to male applicants.

I have seen training programs where there are 300 theater majors and you are lucky if you get on stage once in all the years you are there. That type of arrangement sucks. What would be worse is if there were a similar situation where you would be lucky to perform before you graduated if you were female, but averaged a role every other semester if you were male.

If it was just a matter of more women applying to programs than men, that would be one thing, but if there is a large number of very highly skilled women applying to programs (or even just auditioning based on the skill they have been able to cultivate), then there is a demand for challenging roles to suit them.

Ideally, there would be more roles written with built in flexibility so that choosing to produce a good show didn’t have added baggage of the gender mix. I suspect currently there would be a tendency to cast men rather than women in those roles. I can’t see how a blind audition process like orchestras use could be devised that would mask gender and still accurately evaluate ability in singing and acting.

Art(ist) Education, Working In The Arts

4 Comments

Leading 1.25 Days A Week

March 21, 2016

by:

Joe Patti

By and large I keep things general and relatively low on direct criticism in my blog posts. However, since the goal of this blog is to engender better practices in arts organizations, I feel like I need to address a topic that is under discussed –writing effective, accurate job descriptions.

I see a lot of poorly written job descriptions but there was one that came across my Twitter feed last week that was particularly egregious. Even after a weekend, it still bothered me. I won’t name names, but I am going to pull some lines from the description rather than obliquely referencing it.

The job is for an executive director. The one line that left me incredulous was:

Responsible in developing and executing a management plan where within two years the role of Executive Director will spend 75% of time on fundraising.

To put that into context, 75% of your time is 3.75 days a week. Now you may say the executive director wouldn’t be doing this every week, some months would be more focused on fundraising than others but that is still 9 months out of the year. No matter how you slice it, 75% of a person’s time is still a significant amount of time. If the Executive Director takes 2 weeks vacation, that means leadership and other functions get the 2.5 months that are left.

The amazing thing is, this is listed as number 8 of 8 primary responsibilities. How can something that is expected to take up 75% of an executive director’s time be listed last in a list of primary responsibilities?

Now, I will admit if you read the whole description the fact the person will be expected to do a lot of fundraising finds its way into pretty much every line:

• The position works within a team environment and is responsible for ensuring strong working relationships across the arts and grantor community;
• Plays a central role in fundraising including individual donors, corporate sponsorships and writing and obtaining grants;
• Executing a strategic plan including: education and outreach goals; development of a donor engagement plan including annual giving, events, corporate and volunteer relations; establishment of a major gifts program; and execution of a technology initiative including both hardware and software;
• Financial oversight including drafting and meeting a detailed annual budget;
• Ability to create and nurture relationships with new and existing funders, as well as write and secure grants to underwrite new and ongoing initiatives and general operations;

It would be better if the 75% commitment to fundraising was listed first and then what followed illustrated how that would manifest itself.

But this is more than just a matter of poor formatting and organization of ideas. Overall, I felt like there was a misunderstanding of the role of an executive director and a large mismatch in expectations.

Among the qualifications listed of the applicants are:

• Bold and creative thinker to lead a talented staff;
• Demonstrate good governance, financial oversight, and best non-profit management practice;
• Comfortable with traditional and emerging media;
• Proven leadership skills identifying profitable opportunities and growth within the communities we serve;
• Preferred demonstrated passion for the mission of arts, arts education and outreach to all communities;
• Familiar with STEAM and the maker movement;
• Experience and enjoyment in managing multiple challenging initiatives concurrently;

There was one line in the expected qualifications about possessing fundraising skills, but the primary responsibilities are replete with references to fundraising and grant writing. The qualifications and responsibilities don’t seem to be in synch with each other at all.

The expectations outlined in the qualifications are in line with an executive director, the expectations expressed in the responsibilities are generally more appropriate for a development director.

Where is there time in the 1.25 days a week or 3 months not dedicated to fundraising to devote to leading the staff, focusing on good governance, identifying opportunities for increasing revenue and growing the organization, pursuing a mission of arts education and outreach?

One of the primary responsibilities listed does call for “examining and evaluating the role art plays in the communities we serve and subsequently installing new, progressive and sustainable arts initiatives,..”

I have a suspicion that they started with the qualifications list and then started brain storming about responsibilities. As that list came together, whomever was contributing came to the realization this person would have to work on fundraising a lot and may have arrived at the 75% number without thinking about how that really broke down time wise.

That said, if they really do need someone to devote 75% of their time to fundraising, it would be better to hire a separate development person who only focused on that. If there isn’t money to hire two people then either expectations need to change or priorities need to be evaluated. Does the organization have a greater need to raise money or for focused leadership?

If the answer is money, then hire the development person and the board needs to decide on some sort of ad hoc leadership structure shared between the other staff and board members.

An executive director definitely does participate and contribute to fundraising efforts, but theirs is a leadership position. That leadership can not be exercised 25% of the time and still meet the expectations that staff, funders, business people and community partners have for a person with that title.

A person spending 3.75 days a week/9 months of the year soliciting support is going to be making significant commitments on behalf of the organization. Who is going to be setting the standards, researching best practices, creating policies and leading the staff to meet those commitments? The executive director in the other 1.25 days/3 months?

Who is going to make sure those commitments are met, gather supporting data and materials and do the follow up reporting? That is part of the executive director’s 75% time attending to fundraising you say?

Okay, yeah, maybe, but in the process something is going to suffer. These tasks are time consuming and reporting requirements are increasingly out of scale with the funding received.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Many aren’t specific to this job description. The description just reflects a lot of poor practices that have permeated the non-profit arts. If there is an Everyman, much of this description is Everyjob.

The questions I raise are among those that really need to be considered when writing a job description. Every organization is different so it is close to impossible to borrow sections of other company’s job description and do a good job generating your own.

I am willing to give the organization the benefit of the doubt and believe (even hope) that this description (and other like it) doesn’t match the reality of the position and more attention needs to be paid in making it accurate.

If it does reflect reality, bless the person who takes the job.

Boards, Fundraising, Leadership, Management Philosophy, Working In The Arts

6 Comments