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.

…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!

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.