Home Page

Does Screaming and Demeaning Treatment Make the Show Better?

April 6, 2011

by:

Joe Patti

The big discussion on the LinkedIn Performing Arts Manager forum right now is about the design of a Masters Program in Cultural Leadership. The conversation was slow in starting but sort of took off in the last couple weeks. I mention this just in passing in case anyone else wants to join the discussion and note the source of my post topic.

Anne Marie Quigg recently mentioned in the discussion that she was going to be delivering a conference presentation on her book about bullying in the arts. Bullying is a hot topic in general these days, mostly in schools. But we really don’t discuss it that much in the arts. Or rather, we grouse when we experience it, but we don’t really talk about needing to address it as a matter that undermines the health of the industry, organizations and individuals.

The description of the book notes that really awful people and situations are tolerated because they produce exceptional artistic products and that there is no really concerted effort to change that environment.

“Anne-Marie Quigg researched whether the behaviour represented isolated, rare occurrences in specific creative environments or if it was indicative of a more widespread problem in the arts and cultural sector. She discovered the highest level of bullying recorded in any single employment sector in the UK.

Bullying in the Arts reveals Dr Quigg’s findings, including the personal, organisational, legal and economic consequences of bullying behaviour. Looking at the experiences of countries such as Australia, Canada, France, Sweden, and the United States, this book challenges the notion that the arts are beyond the limitations of the ordinary milieu, exempt from the rules and regulations governing the treatment of employees. “

There have already been mentions in other articles that young leaders reject the premise that one must give their lives to the organization and pay their dues like their predecessors did and prefer a work-life balance. For this reason, many young leaders entering the field don’t aspire to the executive director role.

If this is indeed the trend, (heck, even if it isn’t) it indicates the necessity to address the negative pressures across all areas of the arts and not just administration. It is difficult to believe that only those with ambitions in administration are reticent to embrace the current lifestyle of arts managers and the performers and designers are just fine with the way things are.

Being an artist doesn’t convey a special grace that absolves one of behavior that would get people in most professions fired. Restaurant kitchens are notoriously rough places to work (and they have knives!) and there is a similar debate over the supremacy of the head chef (the way it has always been) vs. the idea that the food doesn’t taste any better for all the screaming.

Given that my experience is mostly in theatrical production and presenting, I am not entirely familiar with the world of dance, opera, classical music and visual art. Are there attempts to address this problem in other areas? What sort of behaviors and practices need to be changed?

General Musings, Leadership, Management Philosophy, State of the Arts

No Comments

Advocate For The Real Artistic You

April 5, 2011

by:

Joe Patti

Many people I follow on Twitter made note of the flashmob activity that happened on Capitol Hill as part of Arts Advocacy Day. I clicked the link to see what interesting thing the arts people converging on the Capitol to talk to their representatives had done.

I have to say, I was pretty disappointed. I am generally not very critical here and rarely directly critical of a specific effort so I think this is saying something.

The whole idea, the thing that is exciting, about arts flash mobs is that they occur in places you don’t expect them providing an arts experience out of the context of the space. Singing a patriotic song like “America, The Beautiful” on Capitol Hill doesn’t really push that boundary and give the thrill of experience that makes you think about the value and place of the arts in your lives the way the Knight Foundation’s Random Acts of Culture program does.

It might not be entirely appropriate, but the first song that entered my mind as an alternative was Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill.” The title has the sense of converging on Capitol Hill and the lyrics talk about a man and woman switching places to gain an empathy for the other. That sort of understanding being a desired outcome for the day’s efforts.

Yeah, it is easy for me to criticize sitting at my computer 5,000 miles away rather than participating in the advocacy efforts. I just think something so safe does a disservice to all those artists who are walking into the offices of representatives who are hostile or indifferent to their cause. A flash mob of arts people should make a statement about all those things we say the arts do–bring change, push boundaries, make people think, excite, etc. At the very least, it should be a statement that the arts people are in Washington and be a source of morale and courage for those who have the face the steely gazes, dismissive smiles and condescending tones of various politicians.

It should be be manifestation of Amy Scheidegger’s Artistic Rebuttal Book which made the trip to D.C. There are a lot of disruptive pokes and prods in that book. But an artist walking into a representative’s office is a more disruptive presence than this flash mob was.

Perhaps the decision to do a flash mob thing was an actual flash effort organized at the last minute and wasn’t really thought out or organized. And granted, you can’t make a lot of sudden unexpected moves in the Capitol without making security very nervous. In the future maybe something more engaging can be planned and executed in another forum. To me it just kinda came off as an attempt to assure legislators that arts people are good patriotic Americans rather than subversive socialists as is widely believed and that they won’t do anything upsetting during their visits.

Arts people shouldn’t have to make any statements about their loyalty. While a legislative office visit isn’t the time to exhibit your “Musings on an Abattoir,” there is nothing to be lost by making people nervous that the work might appear. That is just an illustration of the power of the artist in society.

Government Relations, Leadership

No Comments

Info You Can Use: Good Governance Policies

April 4, 2011

by:

Joe Patti

There is an old adage about the cleanliness of a restaurant restroom being indicative of the care being used in the kitchen for food preparation. There really isn’t an actual relationship between these two facts, but a dirty restroom is enough to give one pause.

The Non-Profit Law blog says the IRS takes a similar stance on whether you check Yes or No on your Form 990 about the presence of policies in the following areas:

* Conflict of Interest Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Executive compensation approval process (Part VI, Section B)
* Document Retention and Destruction Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Gift Acceptance Policy (Schedule M)
* Meeting minutes document practices (Part VI, Section A)
* Review process of Form 990 by the Board of Directors (Part VI, Section B)
* Whistleblower Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Joint Venture Policy, if applicable (Part VI, Section B)
* Policies regarding chapters, affiliates, and branches, if applicable (Part VI, Section B)

It is not illegal to lack these policies, but their absence can be a sign of poor governance and therefore contribute to a decision by the IRS to subject an organization to greater scrutiny.

Emily Chan notes that just because you have policies in these areas doesn’t mean you are covered. It is important to evaluate the policies to ensure they are appropriate for your organization and its ability to adhere to them, comply with the law, are understood and actually practiced.

She supplies the following helpful info: “Note changes to policies are not required to be reported to the IRS unless such polices or procedures are contained within the organizing documents or bylaws and regarding certain subject matter such as conflicts of interests. See Form 990 Instructions.”

If an organization doesn’t have a policy, Chan advises not rushing to formulate them out of a desire to appear to be exercising good governance for public relations reasons (and to perhaps avoid the IRS’ steely gaze). Poor policy being nearly as bad as no policy. Proper policy takes time to formulate so give yourself the time to develop it. In her tips for evaluating existing policies there is an implication that one should avoid adopting the policies of other organizations in any significant degree.

The guidance she provides for creating new policies is:

Thoughtful considerations about how to get to “yes” can include questions such as:

* Which policies have a higher priority based on the circumstances of the organization? For example, an organization that frequently accepts non-cash gifts may have a more pressing urgency to adopt a useful gift acceptance policy as opposed to an organization that hardly, if ever, accepts donations from the public.
* What are anticipated governance issues or past governance issues that these policies should address?
* What kind of capacity limitations – staff, financial resources, or otherwise – should we be mindful of in drafting and adopting a new policy?
* What is the projected timeline for drafting such policy and presenting it to the board?
* If anticipating a prolonged delay (due to resources, time, etc.) before formally adopting such policies, what problems might this cause and what can the organization do to help mitigate these risks?
* Is the organization prepared to explain to the IRS, its constituents, or others why it currently does not have a certain policy and articulate its action plan moving forward to adopt one?

Additionally, it is important to note an organization lacking the recommended policies is not without any recourse on the Form 990. For example, Schedule O (2010) allows for supplemental narratives to further explain the policies or processes used at the organization to address these governance concerns.

Boards, Government Relations, Info You Can Use

No Comments

What Makes Sense In Refund Policies?

March 30, 2011

by:

Joe Patti

Adam Natale writes about Fractured Atlas’ development process for the ticketing module of their ATHENA software. They are talking to different sized performing arts organizations at Community Design Sessions (CDS) to get feedback about the design and assemble a wish-list of features. His discussion of the software’s use for ticket exchanges caught my attention.

“So, in each CDS, I brought up the fact that the software should allow for patrons to easily exchange their tickets. Most people in the room freaked out — enabling patrons to do this would result in complete pandemonium! And then my dear friend at Theatre Bay Area, Jamye Divila, a box office administrator and guru, sided with me. She said something along the lines of, “We do over-the-phone exchanges for subscribers constantly and it takes a lot of staff time to do this. What if we could automate the process and simply build permissions and restrictions into the software so that it doesn’t allow the patrons to do things they shouldn’t be allowed to do?” Suddenly, the air cleared. There was a collective “Oh, software can do that?” sigh that filled the room. Yes, software can do that.”

This made me wonder what sort of criteria people were using to grant refunds that they felt they could provide good customer service via a set of programmed rules. Often the criteria I use is based on judgments that are very human. The death in the family/grave illness, you don’t really question much and given that people know this, it can easily used as an excuse. How can a computer program know that a rock slide was just reported and traffic can’t get through from one direction? Granted, if the program is designed well, the ticket office could reprogram the conditions to make it easy for anyone to request refunds in this case. There are many occasions when nuanced decisions need to be made and I suppose it will always have to be a human that makes them.

Refunding does take a lot of staff time so I can definitely see the benefit of having the computer handle refunds in the cases when snow storms or sick performers force a cancellation. In cases when you have multiple performances and can have the computer offer an exchange to another performance or show of equal value to avoid processing a refund, there also a benefit. It would certainly also be a boon in extending subscriber/donor exchange benefits to people on a 24 hour basis. Those organizations like my own that have single engagement events, might opt to create criteria where anyone who has purchased an average of X single tickets a year since 2005 will be allowed to exchange because they are clearly loyal.

That raises the question about the whys of exchange and refund policies. Why do we not allow refunds? I imagine commitment is probably one issue. We want people to follow through on their decision to attend, especially in these days when there are so many competing choices. For the record, I don’t think people are waiting until the last minute to buy tickets because of the no refund policy. They are generally uncertain about what to do in the face of so many choices.

It is certainly logical to resist granting refunds given that it is a time consuming process. Selling the tickets can be too, but paying employees to give money back has a certain sting to it. If a computer could process the refund for you, would you be more willing to grant a refund?

I also don’t utilize as monolithic a response to refund requests as I once did. I sense this is a better stance in the face of all the options people have. But is it diminishing the perceived value of what we offer to do so?

Is it time to reassess the practice of refusing refunds given that people seem to be waiting until they are absolutely sure they want to attend? Is there an opportunity to appear more customer friendly by having a more liberal policy given that 90% of your audience isn’t buying until the last three days? My suspicion is that most people won’t have any awareness of your policy until they want to use it so a change won’t generate general good will. If you really go out of your way to loudly publicize a very liberal policy, you may really undermine the perception of your product unless you do it very cleverly.

Limitations on refunds and exchanges are a part of everyday life so I am not suggesting that it should be scrapped for performances in order to meet changing expectations. I am just using the occasion of this post to suggest looking at policies to assess if they are still valid in the context of changing purchasing and attendance behaviors and how they play into your goals for community relations.

Audience Relations, Management Philosophy

4 Comments