Since I have been exploring leadership in the arts recently I was interested to see that Drew McManus over at Adaptistration was writing about three executive styles- managers, leaders and builders. Today he dealt with the first two. Initially, I didn't feel the need to post about his entry other than a "Hey, check this out," until I started pondering it.
The thing that struck me the most was that he didn't characterize being a leader as the ideal and suggested that, in fact, such a person could be detrimental to organizational success.
Unfortunately, a Leader's strengths often pull double duty by serving as their weakness. An over reliance on senior staff can put the administration in jeopardy if personnel turnover is too high. And since most Leaders tend to under-perform when directly managing certain aspects of the organization they end up spending inordinate amounts of time keeping the organization running. The result is an organization that suffers from continually falling short of their goals and an executive leader suffering from a severe case of burnout.
Usually I have seen managers and leaders compared as in this article where managers are listed as "Perpetuates group conflicts" and "Doesn't insure imagination, creativity, or ethical behavior" vs. leaders who "Works to develop harmonious interpersonal relationships" and "Uses personal power to influence the thoughts and actions of others." (Note: Yes, article was written in 1996, but it was updated a few months ago and an update article written in 2003 did not change this view.)
This site too, suggests that one should aim to be a leader rather than a manager.
What Drew was writing made sense to me. A lot more sense than the many articles I have read throughout my life urging one to eschew managing in favor of solely cultivating leadership traits. So I started looking around for what people were saying about leadership vs. management. Not only did I find the websites linked to above, but some sites that support Drew's like Mulhauser Consulting, Ltd. which bases their view on empirical studies.
I also came across this entry on Management Craft blog which seemed to lay out the whole leadership vs. management debate practically. (Comments are very interested too) The writer, Lisa Haneberg makes an interesting observation that:
"There is a shortage of great management in many of today’s corporations. Perhaps the management vs. leadership mindset is one reason for this. Leadership is certainly the “sexier” of the two and I wonder if some have abandoned developing excellent management skills because they want to be a leader."
(Note: Somehow I neglected the link to the Management Craft blog entry when I first wrote this entry.)
Came across this bit of information before but forgot to write about it.
Google has a word processing program which is reputed to be as good as MS Word in terms of its features. One benefit it has over Word though is that multiple people can work on the same document simultaneously from different places. No more having to create a read-only copy if someone else is working on a document you want to view.
This has great potential for a lot of different people. Students can work on different sections of papers together while sitting side by side or in the comfort of their own homes, perhaps chatting about each segment using an instant messaging program.
Likewise for arts organizations, different people can work on different sections of a grant proposal narrative at the same time while referencing stats and language the lead writer is using. The online storage reportedly saves as information is being typed rather than at programmed intervals. Google Docs also allows people to telecommute from home or lets a traveling supervisor check on progress, proof and edit from different time zones without worrying about whether software at their destination will be compatible.
A number of years ago I was reading an article that suggested one day our personal computers would regress back to essentially being work stations again with all our software and information processing being accessed from central host locations over the Internet. It looks like that is drawing closer to being true.
On the other hand, given that Google seems to save information on every search conducted via their service, you may want to consider just how sensitive the information you are typing into their word processors and spreadsheets might be. Since most of your financial information is available on Guidestar if you are a non-profit, having that information floating around probably isn't too big a concern. You probably want to forgo using Google Docs to write a report to a lawyer detailing financial malfeasance though.
I was over at Arts Marketing blog last week catching up on Chad Bauman's posts. One of his January posts contained some rules for administering bulk email lists. I looked over what he suggested and felt proud of myself for coming to many of those some conclusions on my own.
The next day I went in to work and reviewed the report for an email I had sent to my Listserv list the evening before. There was a long list of email address with the error message "Excessive Spam Content Detected" I had blatantly broken the rule about not using keywords common to spam in the subject line.
Now in my defense, I always do a test email to my work and two personal email address and the email passed those spam filters. It also passed through Yahoo and Hotmail filters so following Chad's tip about using them as tests wouldn't have helped. My email didn't meet with the approval of the local Time Warner RoadRunner filter and that represents a pretty large chunk of folks.
What were the offending words you ask? One of the groups of musicians we are presenting boasted in an interview that they aimed to make people lose 20 lbs. by the end of the night through dancing. Thinking this was a good hook, my email subject line blared "Lose Weight with Band X at MyTheatre."
In the message body I explained the boast, talked about the group a little and gave the ticket information which is probably why it got through most other filters. The timing was a little humbling given that I had been so smug about having already divined the guidelines.
Knowing the guidelines and following them are two different thing though, eh? Just goes to prove you should always approach what appears to be information with which you are overly familiar with an open mind.
There is a story bouncing around the philanthropy blogs about some shenanigans at MOMA that the IRS is looking into. The NY Times reported that Museum Director Glenn Lowry was getting quite a bit of money on the side from two board members-$35,800 to $3.5 million a year, according to Trent Stamp's Take blog. (And the Times article which I somehow missed on first read and writing.)
The fact this sort of thing worries me is probably as irrational as people who worry about the federal estate tax. Most non-profits (and wealthy folks) will never earn enough money in a year to warrant the attention of the IRS. My concern is that governments will start sniffing around local arts organizations that appear to be doing well (though in relation to MoMA, aren't even in the same neighborhood) with an eye to fines or rescinding non-profit status.
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette (via Artsjournal.com) had an article today about how the city was looking to tax non-profits by getting them to commit to donating a certain amount every year to the city.
Even if it is in the name of assuring good governance, the scrutiny will further burden organizations already short on resources as they struggle to prove that their greatest wish is that they had a relationship with people with enough money make non-compliance with tax code a reality.
Worse, these type of stories erode the perception among the public at large that non-profit arts organizations can be good custodians of their trust and the thousands of small donations that make a difference in the programs the organizations offer.
There are other troubling governance concerns as Jack Siegel at Charity Governance blog points out. (my emphasis)
"It is very troubling that two directors are funding side payments to an executive director, particularly if this was not widely known by other board members. We don't know how much the full board knew. Let's be honest, however, the executive director has a lot influence in shaping any board's view of the institution and why the board should approve certain actions, but not others. If a couple of board members are making side payments to the executive director without the knowledge of other board members, the executive director has an incentive to emphasize his benefactors' agenda when interacting with the full board. In other words, the executive director risks becoming a toady. As a consequence, the full board may no longer be getting the benefit of the executive director's best or impartial judgment."
...seems to be the theme of an arts manager's life according to the APAP commissioned Conversations with the Field report I had written on earlier. People are busy trying to achieve so much that they fear they are losing sight of their organizational mission.
According to the report they are desperate for new tools and techniques to help alleviate their burdens.
"...the online information that is posted and distributed doesn’t adequately address the challenges confronted in today’s current business climate.Therefore, many desire what they perceive to be relevant data, up-to-date news and useful statistics in their inbox. In essence, members are seeking tools that will afford more marketplace leverage and resources that will enhance their capacity to succeed in the earned and contributed income arenas.
However, when asked – in specific terms – what these improved tools and informational tools would look like, respondents were vague and impressionistic. They don’t know exactly what they want, but
they believe that what they’re getting is not meeting their needs. This unease and discontent signals how the field feels that it is harder and harder to succeed in mission-delivery." (pg 14-15)
I won't even pretend that this blog approaches adequately addressing todays business climate. Sometimes I hardly have enough time in the day to ponder what I am going to write much less do a thorough analysis job. What I really thought was interesting about this section of the report is that people can't specifically describe what sort of tools and information they want provided to them. They know they need help and the resources they are aware of aren't providing it. But what form the help should come in, they don't know.
Note I say "the resources they are aware of." I suspect part of the problem is that they don't have the time to review and assess--or even seek out--all the resources that are actually available.
One of the last report findings I cited in my earlier entry was that reviewing and discussing reports, initiatives and literature about the field hasn't been valued. Now that the demands of ones time are so much greater, there probably isn't much hope of reversing this trend. (Though the rise of forum discussions and arts management blogs might help.)
I also think that people in the field are vaguely aware of all the cheap technological tools that are appearing like social networking and video sharing sites. They have a sense that these things can be helpful, but they aren't quite sure how due to lack of time to explore them. They know that chances are, help is out there and within easy grasp. After all, technological improvements are always newer, faster, cheaper and easy to use!
Without a deeper understanding of what each category of advancement is, hearing about all these brand new wonderful things can be overwhelming. I have a feeling that a lot of these arts leaders might be secretly wishing they had the time for someone to come in and explain it all in detail to them outlining how each tool is or is not appropriate for their organization.
It occurred to me that this all describes a segment of the population the arts are trying to reach. Reading and discussing about the arts hasn't been valued. They hear wonderful things about attending The Lion King, The Drowsy Chaperon, the orchestra, the ballet. Their maturing income and entertainment preferences make them more inclined to attend. But they don't have the time to acquire the tools to let them master and enjoy the experience. If only someone would explain it!
The answer is the same for both groups. Those with the information have to find a way to deliver the initial enabling tools to those who seek it. Packaging the tools in a way that makes it appear easy and appealing to access them in the first place and then motivate people to continue to acquire additional mastery and knowledge is the real trick.
How much you wanna bet that the correct mode(s) of delivery is similar for both groups and that the medium through which the time strained arts managers receive their answers is the one they will turn around and use as a delivery vehicle for their communities?
I spent my day in a meeting with my block booking consortium trying to solidify portions of my season for next year. (On my supposed day off! The things I do for art.) As we spoke, I was reminded of a conversation I overheard at the APAP convention last month. A man I assumed was giving an orientation lesson to new attendees was warning the new members against common missteps people make when negotiating contracts with artist agents.
Apparently the number of people and organizations entering the field who are poorly educated/informed about general practices, not to mention legal and ethical considerations inherent to the business is a big concern at the conferences.
With that in mind, I thought I would link back to my primer of presenting terms I did a couple years ago.
I also wanted to link to the Arts Presenters code of ethics but for some reason they are in a password protected area of the website. I can't imagine why they would want the code of ethics to be secret. I see the code was in the process of being revised, but that was a year ago. They may have neglected to make it public on their website when they were done.
As a substitute, I offer the North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents code of ethics which the Arts Presenters New Colleague Handbook encourages people to consult. (The link to NAPAMAA in handbook is expired, use mine.)
I have linked to the guidelines before. I like the NAPAMAA ethical guidelines because they explain the problems caused by not adhering to them instead of just pronouncing things unethical. Out of concern that people may not follow the link, I am going to list a few of the more important points in the Manager-Presenter Relations section that the industry is concerned that people aren't following.
2. Demonstrate leadership at every step of the booking and contracting process.* Every step of the booking process activity should be a model for both sides of the bargaining table.
* Managers must be frank and forceful with presenters about the effects on artists’ careers of potential abuses, such as unreasonable holds, premature requests for contracts, and other restrictions, such as exaggerated exclusivity clauses....4. “Holds” should only be requested and granted with the understanding that a decision will be made within an agreed time frame, generally less than thirty days.
* It is recognized, given the committee structure governing many presenting organizations and the complicated and delicate process involved in putting a season together, that the requesting and granting of "holds" may be a necessary step in the booking process. All parties involved must recognize and respect the good faith aspect of holds and not abuse the process.5. Contracts should only be requested and supplied when all parties can confirm their intention to sign it.
* The contract should be completely, accurately and promptly executed, including any and all riders, except when specific retarding circumstances (government grants, etc.) are clearly defined.
* All parties, including the artist(s), should be fully aware of all conditions and be ready and willing to fulfill them.
* Subsequent impairments should be fully, frankly and promptly communicated to all concerned.
* Remember, verbal agreements are legally binding.6. In the event of a cancellation, the manager and presenter should work together to maintain good will in service of future partnerships.
* The manager-presenter relationship is a partnership in the service of a larger cause—the bond between artists and audiences. The contract is a crucial link in that chain. If it is broken, far more is lost than what can be entered on a balance sheet. In the event a cancellation threatens, be it willful or not, the important thing is to save the bond. The process will be painful and difficult no matter what. The best preventive medicine is a thoughtfully designed and realistic contract. The only palliative is the frankness and good will of the parties.
* If, despite all efforts to prevent it, a cancellation does occur, all sides must use their best efforts either to find a suitable replacement artist or to reschedule the date....8. Presenters must realize how much is at stake when they request a hold or a contract.
* Failure to honor a commitment can adversely affect the viability of an entire tour, with consequences not only for management and artists but also for other presenters. It is especially reprehensible when the desire to cancel stems from problematic ticket sales. Presenters will find managements and artists willing to assist in marketing and promotion efforts that can lead to increased sales. Such cancellations will involve reimbursements to management and artists.
* NAPAMA members are advised not to sign contracts that contain cancellation at will clauses.
It is always a good idea to periodically review how your front line points of contact are interacting with your patrons. Even if you think those supervising these people are on the same page as you, you may find that it is not the case. I know that some people call their own organizations and use an assumed identity to assess how patrons are being treated. Many times you can just walk in the room and keep an ear open, of course.
I bring this topic up because I came across a situation which dismayed me a little. For some reason we have been receiving many negative comments about our $2 handling fee lately. It is the only fee we assess in addition to the face value of the ticket. Some people have outright taken the ignorance is bliss approach and encouraged me to add it to the ticket price so it is invisible to them.
I have considered doing so except that next year I hope to become integrated into a centralized ticketing system which has a mandatory $2 handling fee. It would be even worse public relations to eliminate it for a season and then appear to be re-instituting it.
A number of people have accused the clerks of not informing them about the fee. The ticket office manager urged all the clerks to remember to inform people of the fee.
I was listening in recently and realized that the new approach the clerks were taking was actually encouraging people not to buy tickets. While I don't encourage a hard sell approach of doing anything you can to keep someone on the phone until they buy something, I do expect that if someone calls with the intent of committing to attending a performance, our employees aren't waving them off.
The first thing they were telling people was that if they bought tickets, they would be charged a handling fee. Most callers said they would call back or come the night of the show without buying. When I pointed out that the approach they were using was giving people the message that they shouldn't buy, I was told that they wanted to make sure people knew about the handling fee. There was some sense in their response that it was unethical to wait until later in the transaction.
I told them there was nothing unethical about the standard procedure where they told people the price, cited the handling fee and then gave the total with the handling fee. (I suspected they may have departing from it a little which may have been the source of complaints.) I told them I had no problem with them going through the procedure before they took a person's credit card number. The existence of the handling fee is a regular point of information just like the recitation of the no returns/exchanges and no recording devices policy and didn't need special attention called to it prior to even finding out how many tickets a person wanted.
I was pretty amazed to then be subjected to rolling eyes and sighs of frustration as if I were asking them to hide a charge that appears in either 10 or 12 point type and no later than third on our list of policies in our brochure and web pages. As no one said they were going to refuse, I let the sighing go.
I have been keeping my ears open since then and as best I can tell everyone is generally keeping to the general procedure. Advanced ticket sales have increased. Though that may have more to do with the appeal of the upcoming artists than a less alarming approach to the existence of our handling fee.
We will see how things go as the rest of the season runs. At some point I think I will bring up the topic again and ask people if they feel more comfortable using the standard procedure. First I will listen a little closer to see if they are using the standard procedure or have strayed a little and also check if they sound comfortable and natural using it.
When I was at the APAP conference last month, Neill Archer Roan commented that sometimes it was difficult to figure out who bloggers were. I mentioned that I tried to keep identifiable specifics out of my entries because I wanted to create an everyman-everywhere environment. When writing about my own experiences I wanted to avoid having people dismiss them as having no application in their situation because they weren't in the same region or discipline as me.
From some discussions I have had and comments the blog has received, I think it was a good choice to make. In some cases like yesterday's entry, I think I may have gone a little overboard. In my attempt to avoid identifying the specific discipline by using words like "field" and "genre", I think the entry may have been confusing and difficult to read. (And why didn't I use the vastly better term, discipline, I will never know.)
I apologize to my readers for obfuscating matters in my zeal for greater relevance. I am not going to reveal the discipline out of a desire not to be seen as pronouncing its imminent demise. The other reason I am purposely vague is to protect the identities of the innocent or at least those deserving of compassion. If you really, want to know, email me and I will tell you.
My audience is starting to see the writing on the wall. From one of the surveys we received after a performance this weekend, it seemed a patron looked around at the low attendance and started worrying. On the survey she wrote that if we brought the group back again along with a number of other prominent companies in the field, word of mouth would fill the seats.
The thing is, attendance to shows in that performing field have been dropping recently. One of the colleagues with whom I block book dropped out of this company's tour because she is seeing lower attendance for these events. The irony is that the attendance that my patron thought was so low is actually what I expected. By reducing the number of these events I do each year I jacked attendance up from abysmal to low. I still lost a huge amount of money, but not as much as I would have had I presented more events from this genre.
Alas, name recognition and word of mouth doesn't seem to do it any more for this field. We had a rude awakening last year when a group headed by a charismatic and fairly famous leader which had always attracted substantial crowds drew a minuscule audience.
It had been about 4 years since last they visited and neither the quality of their work or source of the leader's fame had diminished. In fact, just last weekend a man approached me and said they had seen the group last year and was the group we were bringing in this week nearly as good. The company set a standard by which those who follow are judged. People eagerly flocked to workshops and master classes the company conducted last year.
Their wider appeal, and I fear that of their chosen genre, has apparently waned.
What was interesting about the survey form was that this is the first time in my experience an audience member has expressed concern that low attendance might mean the absence of a favored art form from future seasons. People have feared a venue will shut down due to low attendance, but never worried about the exclusion of a genre. I'm sure people are aware that it is a consequence. Television shows are canceled all the time because of lack of interest.
I am wondering if it might be beneficial to recruit her in the future to spread the word about events. By which I mean, I wonder how large her specific social circle is. I have had modest success in using word of mouth for ethnic events, but haven't identified as good networks for performances that don't have a specific ethnic appeal. I wonder if concern that an area of interest would disappear from programming provides a motivation similar to that of a person wishing to promote an event representing his/her ethnicity.
This raises an interesting question. Do you tell people that you are considering cutting back or eliminating a programming area? If you do it poorly it will come across as manipulative. Especially if you make an announcement from stage that because there are only 250 people in the audience, next year Shakespeare will cease to appear on your stage. Even if you find a way not to sound manipulative, there is a temptation to use such pronouncements to cause panic and fill the seats.
On the other hand, administrators often get up in front of their audience and get articles placed in the newspaper that tell the community without their help, the performance space will close. Surely you are asking much less of people if you tell them that you know they love Shakespeare, you love performing Shakespeare but without more interest, you can't justify doing Shakespeare. You are willing to provide posters, brochures, talking points, photos, etc to the Shakespeare supporters if they would mention it to their friends and talk about how the Bard's work isn't as intimidating as it might first appear.
Yes, this is exactly what social networking sites like Myspace.com make it easy to do already. Most of your audience probably isn't on Myspace and don't quite realize the power of a quick email referral. On the positive side, once you mobilize them they will probably make more impassioned pleas for their friends to attend than "Zomg! This show rox! See it!"
One of the moderators of the Emerging Leadership Institute I attended, Rosalba Rolón, is the Artistic Director of Pergones Theater in Bronx, NY. She spoke briefly about the organization during the institute but it wasn't until I read her brochure that something had caught my eye that synched with the stories she told.
She spoke a lot about the support the theater had received from the neighborhood and how indebted the organization was to their neighbors for their survival. Now things are looking up and the area, formerly one of the most crime ridden places in the country, is becoming gentrified. (Apparently, there is talk of changing the name from South Bronx to Downtown Bronx to support the spiffed up image.)
Many arts organizations target mailings to zip codes with affluent neighborhoods because they are more likely to be comprised of a demographic that is inclined to attend events and hopefully donate funds. Pergones uses zip codes to cultivate a different kind of currency.
The theatre remembers to whom it is indebted and offers 50% discounts (scroll to Zip Tickets) on tickets to anyone living in zip code 10451 up until 30 minutes before a performance. At first I misread this as a type of rush ticket available at 30 minutes before the performance but this anytime prior to 30 minutes before the performance.
As rush tickets, I thought this was nice, but when I realized this was a discount on advanced tickets, I thought it was great! This goes to creating a sense of investment, value and good will in the immediate community.
And even if you don't live in the specific zip code, the theater has negotiated a reciprocal agreement for its members giving them a 40% discount at a theater in Manhattan, one in Washington, DC and a festival in Coral Gables, FL. Maybe few will ever be in a position to redeem the discount in the other cities. Still, they have an incentive to experiment and attend while they are away from home rather than doing something else.
The immediate message to the member is that their theater is working on their behalf to give them privileges when they are away from home. The goodwill generated from that is probably more valuable than any discount they might realize while on the road.
Since I have been invoking the idea of assessing technology and only using what is suitable for you instead of jumping on the latest trend, I need to issue a mea culpa.
At various times I have suggested in my entries that organizations should have the artistic staff blog about their rehearsal experience. I still think this is a good idea. However, of the few organizations I have seen who have had their artistic staff blog, I have to say I have been really unimpressed.
Many of them start out the first couple days of rehearsals and then either come to a dead stop or don't pick up again until just around opening night. The entries that are there are pretty predictable. They start out talking about the great group that has been assembled and how exciting it all is. Then often nothing more.
Certainly one could get more entries generated if one made it a contractual requirement and set aside time each day during which performers and the creative team were to scribe their musings. After reading the experiences of a college professor who required her classes to blog, I am not sure this is the most constructive or productive tack to take.
Frankly, the blog postings I required my students to write were just not very interesting. Those students are bright, insightful, frequently opinionated, and, as a whole, a pleasure to be around. Their blogs were not.
I imagine that if you assembled the most brilliant group of performers and artistic collaborators the world could imagine, you might find that their brilliance was less apparent in what they produced for the blogosphere.
So I take it back. If you can do it well and your audiences will benefit from it, blog away! If not, turn the creative energies toward creating a great performance.
Neill Archer Roan posted an interesting leadership case study/exercise yesterday. What I really admired about it were the questions.
I appreciated that they didn't specifically ask who was at fault and how could the person(s) handle the situation more constructively. The questions don't even ask how you would address the situation with the development director or the board. I am sure any group discussion of the case would probably result in blame being assigned, but I like the fact that the questions don't necessarily imply that removing a person is part of the solution.
Too often we imagine the solution to be simpler than it is and decide "if only X were to happen, we would be all right." The X factor is usually just a symptom or a quick fix for a symptom and doesn't address an underlying cause.
The entry is worth taking a look at just to think about. Some of the questions Neill poses may not have any significance to any situation you are in. You may never ponder "What behavioral or cognitive patterns are in place?" for example, unless you are really interested in organizational behavior.
Even though he places the reader in the position of Executive Director, one need not take that point of view to consider any part of the scenario. In the best situation, you will come up with some questions he hasn't posed. Moving beyond what Neill suggests shows that your brain is really churning away and exercising your problem solving muscles.
I had mentioned in an earlier entry that I met blogger and arts consultant Neill Archer Roan at the APAP conference a couple weeks ago. I saw he was sitting on a conference panel during a time I had a scheduling conflict and thinking it might be my only chance to see him, stuck my head in before the session began to express my admiration for his blog.
I wasn't going in there hoping to elicit a mutual admiration conversation so I didn't mention Butts In the Seats. At most, I thought he would recognize my name. Instead, I was taken aback as he launched into some pretty effusive praise of my blog.
I mention this not so much by way of self-aggrandizement as full disclosure. I didn't know at the time that I would see him again as did presented the results of a study commissioned by APAP on the state of the industry. I was really impressed the work he and Wendy Roan did on the study and the recommendations they made.
As usual, I suggest giving the study a read. It is only 16 pages long and contains excerpts from interviews with various members of the association. There was a lot that didn't surprise me or wasn't new, but a couple things caught my eye.
Something I hadn't really thought about was that all the new construction of performing arts centers is as big a threat to the financial health of another center 3000 miles away as it is for an arts organization 5 miles away.
"...competition has significantly increased for those marquee attractions across categories that are deemed necessary to justify large public investments in arts-as-economic-development. Just because there are more presenters wanting to book Yo Yo Ma, The Producers, Natalie Cole, Wynton Marsalis, et al, doesn’t mean that there are more performance dates available. Presenters that have traditionally occupied a slot in particular tour route must often pay more and commit earlier to defend their ability to get first crack at the events that their audiences expect and want." (page 6)
The report also notes that these greater expenditures at one end of a season often means funds aren't available to present high quality artists with an appeal to a narrower niche.
Another section of the report dealt with a problem I hope my blog helps to reduce with entries like this one.
"It is generally agreed that the culture of the presenting field has not historically been one in which knowledge and systematic learning have been valued. It is not atypical...that the knowledge outputs (e.g. reports, books, discussion documents, etc.) from significant studies, research initiatives, task forces, and work groups have been largely unread, undiscussed, and undigested. As a result, the value that is created by these initiatives remains largely under-appreciated." (page 6)
I was also somewhat surprised to see that succession planning is such a big concern. I thought when it came up in my ELI sessions, it was perhaps partially a sign that there were a lot of young arts leaders hungry to move up the ladder and there were few opportunities. "Many participants voiced fears and frustration about their organizations’ failure to: 1) effectively plan for succession, and; 2) institutionalize and capture organizational knowledge and expertise." (page 6 again, it was a good page!)
For awhile now I have been saying that I thought the block booking arrangement was going to have increased importance as finances become tighter and tighter. There were a number of comments (pages 8 & 9--too much to quote here) cited in the report which suggest that greater collaboration not only in the form of block booking but also information exchange and regional cooperative efforts is going to be critical for sustainability.
After this, the report deals more with the conference and Arts Presenters as an organization. My plan is to address some of these issues at a later time.