During a meeting I had today I was reminded of a series of problems I had with a group of traveling artists some time ago. I think enough time has passed that I can talk about it without revealing the identity of the group to any but the most ingenious of researchers.
One of the things I am often most anxious about when a performing group arrives is that they won't find the arrangements we have made suitable to their needs. Following the advice of the man who trained me in the business, I am pretty meticulous about advancing a show with a road manager. I double check the details of a rider just in case personnel changes result in different dietary or technical needs. It isn't foolproof but generally the worst that happens is the group arrives and says, "Oh, you must have the old rider," and accommodates what is usually the lack of something minor.
I am also upfront about anything we can't provide as soon as the topic comes up. If I suspect there might be a problem brewing with something, I send off an email confirming conversations so that I have it in writing and time stamped. In one case, I reiterated a fact in three different emails because it didn't seem to be sinking in to the guy's brain. Fortunately, it did before he arrived.
There was an instance where despite a lengthy conversation with the road manager the group had issues with the food, hotel and transportation after they arrived. The only thing that didn't emerge as a problem was the technical equipment we provided. What contributed to the problem was that the agent and the road manager apparently did not communicate the information to the artists. The artists did not communicate their needs with the road manager or have them written into the contract. What seemed strangest to me was that they had been touring for years upon years and hadn't ironed these details out. There were plenty of "you must haves" listed in the contract but a lot of basic details omitted, too.
The night before the group arrived the road manager called and said that the group would like to exercise the option I had mentioned (and expected them to exercise) a month earlier and have their rooms upgraded to suites. They would pick up the cost difference. So I scramble and as luck would have it, there are enough suites available. I am also asked to make a dentist appointment for the first business day after the concert for a group member who is having a problem with a tooth. Even more amazingly, I find someone at a dentist office near the hotel that late at night and make the arrangements during the specific time frame the performer requested.
When the group arrives, we go to the venue and I am asked to go grab food for the group because they hadn't gotten to eat before their flight and their technical director doesn't want them leaving the theatre. (Come to find out, they went swimming instead of eating earlier that day.) Later when dinner arrives, we discover the caterer has decided to embellish a little and stuffed the entree with crab. One of the group won't eat it because of the crab.
Now my mother is deathly allergic to shellfish and has almost died on a number of occasions. The two questions about food I specifically address is seafood allergies because of her and vegetarian requirements because the term means different things to different people. There were no allergies of any sort mentioned. So off I go for two more meals because one of the other people decides that since I am going anyway they would rather have something else.
An hour before curtain the road manager comes and asks if I can move them to another hotel. Now note that at this point, they haven't checked in to the rooms I upgraded for them the day before. The reason is due to a minor feature, the lack of which I revealed to the road manager a month prior. Since I had made the reservations month earlier to secure good rates during high season and a purchase order had been issued to cover the estimated cost at that hotel, there was nothing I could do.
I think they secretly wanted to stay at a specific hotel because they ended up staying there on their own dime which equaled four times the amount they would have paid for the upgraded rooms I arranged. Unfortunately, due to the fact I had canceled the rooms hours before they were to be occupied, I ended up paying for them. Fortunately, the hotel took pity on me and only charged me the regular room rate rather than the suite rate.
After the show, I discovered that instead of one trip to the airport, they had changed their plans and would now be leaving at four different times. The next day was a non-travel day for the company and all seemed well. No messages at all from the group. Still, after I went home I checked my voice mail and email regularlly for problems. Then at 11 pm I got a call at home (a number I didn't give them) from the road manager saying the group wanted to alter their pick up times.
That was about the end of the troubles, fortunately. If I recall, the performance was great. The audience loved it and had no clue what was happening behind the scenes. The one thing I appreciated was that they let the road manager do all the talking. Maybe it was because they didn't like confrontational situations. But I was glad that as I drove them to the hotel I didn't book, they didn't try to explain themselves. They kept thanking me and my staff for all we did and talked about how grateful they were. I grinned and bore it while looking forward to their departure thinking all the while that if they were really grateful, they would stop making my life a living hell. Revisiting a frustrating topic while driving would probably not have been a good idea so I was just as happy to have them ignore that elephant in the room.
Were I to offer any advice to people starting out and those who have been lucky enough not to have a couple days like these. This was one of those fluke occurrences that transpire despite your diligent efforts to address issues well in advance. In fact, good advance planning allowed the situation not to get worse. The night of the performance everything that I would usually wander around checking on was completed by staff and volunteers doing their jobs. That left me the time to address these problems without overtly freaking out. Following this incident, I am sure I annoyed the next few road managers coming through on tour to no end double and triple checking their requirements. But I guarantee you that everyone has been happier that I have wanted to be better safe than sorry.
I have been participating in some interesting exchanges lately. The drama production class produced a pretty dark adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the Lab Classroom this semester. I wasn't too keen on the show in principle because it was set in a dance club and an organization in town had just finished their 3rd revival of Romeo and Juliet set in a strip club. I was annoyed that it was so derivative when so many other options available.
Taken on its own, it was pretty good. There were some inventive moments. For example, since the playwright decided the rude mechanicals didn't have enough time to rehearse and learn lines, he has them present a silent butoh version of Pyramis and Thisbe. The students did a good job creating the club atmosphere by having officious bouncers at the door, black lights in the stairwell and a half-hour pre-show of the characters dancing in the club. The pre-show lent itself especially well to establishing the Helena-Demetrius-Hermia characters and backstory.
In any case, the show sold out every night of the extended run. The director started thinking it would be great to do it on Mainstage setting up platform seating around a playing area on stage rather than having the audience sit in the permanent seats. The playwright and I are both against the idea because the dynamics of the show will be entirely different. Instead of the cramped quarters and low ceilings of the Lab classroom, audiences will be watching a show surrounded by the wide open spaces of the wing space on the sides and the 70 feet of air in the fly system overhead.
To create the same ambiance, we would have to have everyone come in through the loading dock roll up door at the back of the theatre, build a hallway through the shop into a room we constructed on stage. At a certain point it seems strange to build a theatre inside your theatre. Even still the relationship of the audience to the actors and to each other is going to change. The small basement space holds 75 people which translates to two rows of 12 chairs on three side of the playing area. The director is talking about serving an audience of 300. Even if the performance was done fully in the round, that is 75 people in each direction. This increase in both the width and the depth of the seating area changes the size of the playing area and reduces the sense of tension and conflict.
Of course, part of the endeavor would be to create an entirely new production that had its own character rather than to recreate the elements of a past success. Though as the playwright pointed out, each revival of the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet adaptation was worse than the one before. Granted, they didn't have the benefit of our superb production team. The adage about not being able to enter the same river twice probably is a good caution when considering your motivation for reviving a show.
The date proposed for the revival is Fall 2010 and a lot can happen in the interim. Perhaps both the playwright and I will feel less strongly about the topic a year from now when the time comes to decide such things. I don't talk a lot about the decision making process I go through here on the blog. I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to record some of the considerations that have come into play. It will be interesting to me to see how I view things next year and 18 months hence if the decision to perform it on our mainstage is made.
At a time when arts organizations are merging the executive and artistic director position into one, either as a cost saving measure or because they can't identify suitable candidates to fill vacant roles,** comes praise of dual leadership as a model for non-profits in general to emulate.
Says the Nonprofiteer:
"...the Nonprofiteer wonders why all nonprofits don't adopt the bifurcated leadership model common in the arts: an Artistic Director to lead program, a Managing Director to handle resource acquisition and allocation.
Wouldn't social service agencies operate better with someone at the helm whose expertise was effective service to clients and someone at the rudder whose expertise was squeezing every dime til it shrieked? These are not identical skills--they're not even complementary--and for charities to insist on combining them into a unitary Executive Director means one part of what they need done will almost inevitably be done badly."
I don't know if the Non-Profiteer is suggesting two people in equal roles necessarily. I am familiar with the structure of a number of non-profit social service organizations and short of a couple very large entities, I can think of none where there was a programs person with the scope of authority and responsibility comparable to an artistic director. Any change may not require an equitable relationship as much as less a lopsided one between the two areas.
What is interesting to me is that the Nonprofiteer's comments have made me re-evaluate the dual leadership issue. Deciding to consolidate positions for economic reasons or because the board can't/doesn't want to find a replacement suggested problems about the organizations other than the implications of a changed leadership dynamic. It is certainly easy to see how both roles can get the short shrift with satisfaction for neither when they are invested in one person. My thoughts upon reading that the positions were being consolidated were generally that it was too bad for that company rather than the decision was bad for the performing arts world as a whole other than considering it an example of poor decision making. Some times it takes the observation of an outsider to make you reevaluate if something is valuable enough to fight to keep.
(**I wanted to cite the article I recently read supporting this fact in but for the life of me, I can't find it.)
In the movie, The Princess Bride, the character Fezzik talks about how fighting one man is different than fighting a group. (It is right around 1:35) In fact, according to the powerful giant, it can be tougher to fight one person than a group.
It a lesson I relearned this past week when we were hosting a one person show. When we have a group of people visit to perform, even if they number as small as three, they are generally mutually reliant and supporting. They work out their schedule among each other and get themselves where they are going. With a single person, the dynamic changes and the relationship with them can become more intimate.
I had approached last week thinking that the group before had presented little difficulty and how much less a problem an individual would be. In some respects it was, but in many other aspects the performer's visit consumed much more of my time and attention than most groups do.
For example, groups generally take their meals together be it catered in house or driving to a nearby restaurant. Smaller groups might invite staff and crew to take meals with them but with an individual, the opportunity presents itself more often and feels natural. Last week I ended up eating dinner out more times than I ever have since moving here. I was late or missed events I frequent weekly as a result.
While I regularly escort performers to their hotel after meeting them at the airport, there are times I don't if they feel comfortable driving themselves. Last week I waited around 4 hours to escort him while he unpacked and set up at the theatre. Sure I would have rather gone home, but he was in a strange city, it was raining and while it is easy to get to the hotel, he didn't have anyone to help him navigate.
Working with an individual performer doesn't always present challenges. The dinner conversation was great. In fact, I was disappointed that I wasn't able to take him around to a more diverse group of restaurants. Last year I was driving a single performer to the theatre to rehearse and took a 20 minute detour to a scenic overlook because the she kept admiring how beautiful it was and I knew she would appreciate the view. These usually aren't options that even enter consideration with groups. One's relationship with individuals is more likely to feel like a guest and host or even familial interaction.
In some situations, dealing with a single person is less difficult if they relax their expectations. For most of the week we had our hospitality set up moved from our green room to the scene shop because it was less trouble to grab water, coffee, cookies and fruit from the stage. Generally performers are less keen about getting their coffee next to a table saw.
When we talk about customer service, speak of treating every individual as if they are the most important person. But if this type of experience has reminded me of anything, it is that the standard of care rendered to people has to be anything but. People in groups often get a lot of what they need from their companions. Dealing with individuals sometimes thrusts the role of a companion upon you by default.
Part of the point I am trying to make isn't so much about having a separate way of dealing with a single person at the box office versus a group that comes to buy their tickets as it is an attempt to create a metaphor about being mindful of the dynamic that group size dictates. Our audience had as different a relationship with the single performer as I did. It may seem self-evident in your mind that the experience would be different, but there are assumptions about what will happen that we automatically project on our experience based on past experience that simply are not valid. In such cases, operating as business as usual may yield disappointing results for audience, artist and staff.
One of the things I hate most about attending conferences is that the sessions I want to see most seem to always be scheduled at the same time. One of the tough choices I made was between a session on Emerging Leaders and one on the career opportunities for Arts Management program graduates. I attended the latter hoping to purchase the audio of the other session only to discover it wasn't recorded due to a mix up about what hotel it was occurring at.
The session on career opportunities for arts managers was lead by Andrew Taylor of the Bolz School, Irene Conley, Chair of Performing Arts Management at the Hartt School and a gentleman whose name I neglected to note.
The discussion wasn't so much about the job market that will greet arts managers as it was about the skillsets arts managers will need to possess.
Conley mentioned the importance of problem solving, resourcefulness, critical thinking skills and good communication skills. One of the things she requires her students to do is make four new contacts each week as a networking exercise forcing them to do enough background research on people that they can answer questions about each person.
As part of the classroom experience, she emphasizes the process of group work as well as the end product. She has the students evaluate what they did as a member of the team since that is the dynamic they need to operate within in a job environment.
She works to make sure the internship opportunities her students avail themselves of are meaningful and not just providing advanced knowledge in copier machines.
Andrew Taylor took a slightly different approach in talking about what skills managers should have. His contention is that arts organizations look for a one to one correlation between a job description and the skillset a person has. He noted that corporate recruiters know what type of person they are looking for, the skills that will translate to their industry and assume the person can acquire the specific knowledge they need on the job.
Arts organizations don't know what they want, write up an extensive wish list and then try to find someone who has those exact skills. If I understood Taylor's explanation correctly, finding an exact fit is not only difficult, it also contributes to a view of the organization that is limiting. The idea that the activities of development are exclusive of marketing which are exclusive of sales is the type of thinking that stunts progress. A person needs skills and understanding that encompass all these areas regardless of which one they are being hired for.
As an illustration, Taylor mentions that an associate was looking for someone to run the box office of a large performing arts center. After some dissatisfaction with candidates from the arts field, he ended up hiring a person who had run a Sears phone order center because they had a better sense of how to manage offering service on that scale.
Taylor says he trains his students to essentially take control of interviews and use answers that create a bridge between what the organization is looking for and the skills the student possess to show how their experience translates.
I made the comment that I thought another skill set people needed was the ability to talk about and advocate for the arts. I mentioned the need to communicate the value of the arts at all ends of the spectrum-- advocating to governments and grant makers, (noting that recent research shows that the arts may not be best served by citing economic value of the arts), all the way down to press releases and speaking to individuals.
The part of the session that got me thinking the most though was the idea that arts organizations don't know what they are looking for when they hire. I currently have my hands tied in that regard since I work for a state institution that pretty much codifies how good a candidate for a position is based on number of years experience and education. I have clearly seen more effective people paid less because their experience and education were less than others.
I imagine there will come a day when I can't hide behind the strictures of a bureaucracy when it comes to determining who is best suited for a job so I have already started pondering what the skills are that candidates for arts jobs should possess. How should a job description be written to attract people with these skills and knowledge? What appears in the descriptions today that don't reflect what we really need/should be seeking?
What I think I need to do is ask Andrew Taylor if he has come across a situation where the description, interview and actual position all correspond appropriately. I fear his answer will be that such a situation doesn't exist within the arts world.
I have just returned from the Arts Presenters Conference. I must have tried to do too much in too little time because I am fighting off a cold right now. I did want to make a post on one of the sessions I attended because some of the information communicated was simply fascinating.
In the Learning to Lead session The Artful Manager, Andrew Taylor's graduate students presented the results of their research about what resources arts managers used to learn and solve problems. When they finished, I got up and asked a question about the results of their survey. They found that 90% of people read reports, books, etc at least once a year. I asked what end of the spectrum the majority of responses fell since last year Neill Archer Roan had presented findings at the APAP conference that said that learning was not valued in the presenting field.
Since Neill's research was based on interviews and were anecdotal, I wasn't sure if his results were any more scientifically based than the grad student's results which was based on a self-selected group that filled out an online survey. I also stated some curiosity about whether people who were more comfortable with online surveys might be reading more reports via that medium. The students who responded said the reading that was taking place were skewed toward the less frequent.
I hadn't known that Neill was sitting a couple rows behind me and soon he got up to address the issue of learning not being valued. I was so amazed by what he had to say, I bought the MP3 file of the session so that I could quote him accurately.
Speaking of the work the Roan Group does, he said,
"We believe there is a cultural bias against learning in this field and in the non-profit field as a whole. We believe that that exists for several reasons. One is cultural another is really biological. There are a lot of studies about satisfaction and how we are actually wired...Someone who is rationally satisfied behaves no differently than someone who is rationally dissatisfied. People behave differently when they are emotionally satisfied...the pathways back to learning are different where there is emotional satisfaction...I think in our field and in the performing arts, there is so much emotional satisfaction...that is actually a barrier to our need to understand and respond. (my emphasis)
The idea that emotional satisfaction, which is probably what allows people in the arts to tolerate low pay and long hours, is actually inhibiting progress just sort of blew my mind.
He goes on to say that in the arts there isn't a practice of looking back and evaluating a situation for what works and didn't work and then documenting the findings. Without the documentation, the arts rely on tacit knowledge carried in individuals. While tacit knowledge is superior to documented knowledge, if you have high turnover, your organization doesn't learn.
The session was about two hours long so I imagine there will be other insights I will derive from them as I review the file.
Next week I will attending the Association of Performing Arts Presenters conference in NY. Unlike last year where I was there for a week attending the conference and Emerging Leadership Institute, this year I am in and out very quickly in a weekend. I cringe at the thought of all that time on the plane. Once I get there, I know I will wonder why I ever resisted the idea because I get so much out of the experience. I enjoy the opportunity to see showcases, talk to artists and learn about new trends and philosophies in performing arts.
One of my biggest motivations for attending this year is to continue what was started last year in having Emerging Leadership alumni involved at the conference and advance an agenda. We have meetings and social gatherings planned this year. We were going to sponsor an issues session until we learned that Andrew Taylor's students at the Bolz Center were going to be presenting findings from a study that was generally aligned with our purpose.
We also encouraging our membership (and anyone else interested in the topic) to attend the session at the conference, Learning to Lead: Where And How to Arts Professionals Extend Their Knowledge and Advance Their Craft. Andrew has a post about it on his blog today. Even if you aren't going to attend, if you are an arts leader, please consider filling out the 15 question survey that will inform the discussion and findings of the session.
The survey asks questions about where one goes looking for knowledge and help in solving problems. Though it could probably comprise an entire research session of its own, I would have liked to see some questions asking people to measure the value of the guidance/help they receive. From conversations I have had over the last year, I suspect a good many people would comment that they weren't getting the guidance they needed or perhaps were having a hard time identifying a trustworthy person with whom to discuss their problems.
And though it wouldn't be scientific and might have been a little more time consuming, it would have been interesting if they asked where people got their initial training in the arts. I am just curious how many people have formal education and how many were mentored and learned on the job.
In any case, while Andrew will undoubtedly have an entry discussing the session, I intend to do one as well to present my perspective. I usually try to avoid duplicating the subject of his posts since I assume we share a lot of readers. But I am making a very long flights in very short time. I am gonna earn the right to bloviate a little. I am sure my approach will differ from Taylor's to some extent any way.
Since things are quieting down around the theatre this week (we only have a pre-school Christmas show, college winter graduation, Nutcracker brush up rehearsal and performances). I have been trying to dispose of obsolete equipment from around the office and such.
One of the things it is difficult to do around a theatre is get rid of stuff. The technical director here is notorious for holding on to things. In one respect this is good because so much is recycled, we don't need to purchase new materials all the time. Saving money is good.
On the other hand, there are items we have had for 25 years and haven't used and probably will never use again. We have tried to get rid of them but he insists we keep them against a theoretical use we may have in the future. This is preventing us from freeing up some much needed storage space and actually endangering other objects given that many of the old pieces are termite infested. We are able to toss some things out while he is on vacation (parting is less painful out of sight) or when they crumble under his touch due to the aforementioned termites.
Given that he is the one that has to work around the lack of storage, the situation is really more a bother for him than for me. I merely look around the shop and sigh about all the room we would have if shelves and the area under the pit were cleaned out.
In some respects, I am as bad as he only on a much smaller scale. We got brand new shiny ticket printers this summer but I just packed away the old one "just in case" even though it won't work well at all with our new ticketing software. If the new printer had a problem, it would be a better use of our time to hand write all our tickets rather than attempt to configure the software to the old printer.
I am sure these type of practices are a metaphor for theatre as an industry as a whole. Resistance to tossing out barely functional equipment for fear we may one day need it probably equates to holding on to old practices and programming for fear that adopting new ones might leave us with less of an audience than we are already drawing.
In fact, I am pretty sure a feng shui practitioner would say that cluttering our space with old, unused objects is anchoring us to the past and hindering the progress we could be making in our lives. Since there are some items that we use often like our platforms, those feng shui practitioners and people on those anti-clutter home improvement shows wouldn't necessarily counsel us to toss them.
Repainting a platform to make it look better on stage is one thing, but dressing up old audience development and programming strategies is another. The platform has some functional life left to it. There is often less hope to be found in old marketing practices.
The fear of discarding something with even marginal use when you have an untried replacement--or no replacement at all, can be paralyzing. I fully acknowledged to my assistant theatre manager that I would probably toss the old ticket printer this summer but I couldn't bring myself to part with it just right now.
In years past I have written about how the members of my block blocking consortium leverage our purchasing power by proposing a tour to performers and their agents. Given the difficulty of finding workable time slots among 3-6 different organizations across the state, we often earn our discounts.
One thing I hadn't found was a good example of producing organizations who cooperated to cut costs. Among presenters like my consortium, the questions that come up are mainly date and cost related--when are the artists available, are there openings on members' calendars, can we afford the terms the performers seek.
Among producing organizations, there are so many more questions many potentially related to the artistic differences among the organizations- who does the casting, who designs costumes, lights, sets. Will the artistic quality and value reflect what patrons have come to expect of their local theatre. Will the other theatres have input into any of these elements? How much of the sets travel and how much is built by each organization? Given differences in stage sizes, what set pieces may be cut and still maintain the vision of the directors and designers?
How is it going to be paid for? If the theatres each normally operate under different Equity pay rates, will the actors be paid differently in each theatre?
Presenters face some of these questions on occasion, but to very limited degree compared to groups that are co-producing.
A blog entry on the McCarter Theatre website sheds some light on some of these questions. They are co-producing Argonautika with Berkeley Rep and Shakespeare Theatre Company. The show was rehearsed and first opened in San Francisco though the show was cast from auditions at all three locations. All three organizations are sharing all rehearsal costs (including the brush ups when the show moves) and presumably a portion of many of the other costs.
I liked McCarter Producing Associate, Adam Immerwahr's reasons for partnering with other organizations.
1) it allows what would otherwise be a local production to have a much broader impact;2) it allows an artist to continue to develop their work over time (allowing them another chance to make adjustments with each production);
3) it can be a cost-saving measure, allowing each of the theaters to share common costs (like the set, costumes, rehearsal time and casting expenses);
4) it is a way for multiple theaters to each share their expertise (new play development, mounting musicals, building big sets, etc.).
I especially appreciated the final point about shared expertise. I have been talking about cooperative efforts for a long time and while cost-savings is certainly going to be important in increasingly difficult financial times, I have always felt sharing knowledge and effort was going to prove crucial to the survival of many arts organizations because so little occurs among arts entities to begin with.
The cultivation of young, emerging arts leaders is a topic of growing importance these days. Two weeks ago, Andrew Taylor quoted as speech by Ben Cameron of the Doris Duke Foundation in which Cameron noted
"....expectations from young people around higher compensation, shorter hours, in essence less patience for the sacrificed lives of dignity and the financial masochism that were the givens for so many in my own generation -- this conversation brought to my ears, at least, a new strand: the unwillingness of emerging leaders to be mere custodians of organizations they inherit."There are plenty of us eager to give ourselves to the arts." they said, "But unless we are given the same authority to reinvent and reshape organizations as you yourselves were given, we are not interested."
The current issue of Inside Arts magazine addresses the same topic. (free registration required) The article, Leading into the Future, starts out talking about a young woman who becomes involved with an arts organization, ends up working 90 hour weeks and finally quits and starts working for a finance firm because the pay and opportunities to pursue her musical interests are much better. Fortunately, the story has a happy ending as the woman ends up working for the Future of Music Coalition.
The general theme of the piece is that arts organizations need to recognize what the interests and goals of young people in the arts are. While the arts can't offer good pay, the industry can provide people with a means of expressing themselves. Only, they need to be allowed the time to do so.
The article quotes Andrew Taylor in his role as head of the Arts Management program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"We have an astounding resource in terms of the value and power of the work, but we've created rigid structures that are not the kind of places young people want to work. My students are passionate, skilled and trained, but when they get into a place with an apprentice mindset, and they don't get meaningful work for the first three to five years, it's a waste on both sides."
and later is quoted as saying
"Some experienced leaders say there aren't people ready to step up, but that's because they don't see people exactly like them," Taylor said. "The perception is that the younger generation is not as committed . . . [but] there are young people all over the place who are passionate and ready to lead."
This is definitely an area to keep an eye on. As arts leadership approach retirement age, succession issues are going to come to the fore. Questions will emerge about not only who will take over but how these new leaders expect their organizations to operate in relation to employees.
I am not a big Oprah fan but I heard a story last week on All Things Considered that really impressed me as to how invested her show is in the success of their partners. The story focuses on a small company with 6 employees whose soaps were chosen to be given away on air as part of Oprah's Favorite Things.
One of the things the Oprah people did was send the company technical details for their web server to make sure their website didn't go down from all the visits they were likely to get. Apparently Oprah's website gets near 4 million hits alone when she does her favorite things shows. It just strikes me that the show could easily regard the show as throwing favor to the small company and let them fend as best they can. Some of the other favorite things were made by corporations like Samsung, Hasbro, United Artists and LG electronics who have to resources to maintain websites and fulfill orders and are more likely to be partners in the future.
Even though arts organizations feel like they are the ones seeking/begging favor, there are plenty of times when arts organizations have the opportunity to make a partner's experience more enjoyable. It might be the quality of advance materials for a school outreach or giving a sponsor a high quality of care even though they aren't one of your bigger donors.
There is a column on the Fast Company website, Ten Habits of Incompetent Managers that makes for an interesting read.
Some of the habits author Margaret Heffernan mentions are pretty common sense- afraid to make a mistake, keeping too many problems secret from employees, afraid confronting a problem will hurt people's feelings, focus on picayune details to hide general incompetence, heavy use of consultants and problem with deadlines.
There was one habit that never occurred to me and another that I wasn't sure could be true for the arts. The habit that never entered my mind was Inability to Hire Former Employees. "Every good manager has alumni, eager to join the team again; if they don’t, smell a rat." Heffernan believes if a person has spent a long time in the industry but hasn't mentored people who are interested in working for them when they move on, it might be time to be concerned.
There are some areas of the arts where following someone isn't practical, of course. But this criteria can provide a metric for some positions.
The bad habit I am not sure could be applied to the arts is Long hours. Says Heffernan-
"In my experience, bad managers work very long hours. They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights, early mornings and no time off cannot manage himself so you’d better not let him manage anyone else."
Managers in the arts work long hours because the hours are often long and there is a lot of work to be done and few people to do it. I will concede, however, that a lot of arts people see working long hours as heroic. I have conflicting thoughts about this. Since I have engaged in long hours in the name of art, I acknowledge that putting in the hours is a necessary part of the job.
I also feel that those who work long hours over an extended period of time, perhaps secretly thriving on their martyrdom, they are masking serious deficiencies in an organization. If it is not clear that the work load is beyond the organizational capacity, changes to procedures can not be effected, staffing needs aren't addressed and additional programs are created in the belief there is a little wiggle room. It isn't until people leave or collapse in exhaustion that the extent of the problem is realized.
Last week I received a questionnaire from a Performing Arts Management student at the Hartt School of the University of Hartford. With her permission, I am reposting it here. It gives some insight into what up and coming leaders are thinking.
As a theatre/company manager… What educational background is required/expected?What kind of experience is required/expected?
Where are the jobs? Who does the hiring?
Will there be jobs in this field in 5 years? 15 years?
What are the “big names” in the field?
What personal characteristics are needed for success in this field?
I haven't formulated my answers yet. I am a little wary about prognosticating on the whole idea of whether there will be jobs in 5 years or 15 years. My answer will certainly be longer than a yes or no.
The question that interested me most was regarding who the big names in the field are. Folks like Joe Dowling at the Guthrie and Libby Appel who just left Oregon Shakespeare come to mind. But it occurs to me that unlike other areas of the arts, there are no managers that I ever hear people say they want to emulate.
When a design from a big name designer comes in, I have heard tech directors and designers make impressed noises. When the names of noted directors, choreographers, musicians, actors and dancers are attached to a production, it lends a degree of gravitas. Artists and even theatre managers often express an interest in working with these talented people, but rarely, if ever, have I heard anyone say they wanted to work with a specific theatre manager. I have heard people voice strong desires to work at theatres, but can't remember anyone say they wanted to absorb the wisdom of one of the administrative leaders.
My theory is that this is because a theatre manager is effective in relation to the community in which they operate. What they do well may not translate well to other places. Knowing this, other theatre managers don't tend to idolize too many others. which is not to say they don't envy another's resources and budget.
Now one may claim that directors, performers and designers must tailor their approaches to different physical spaces, technical resources and personnel. However, these people are dealing with others who share a standard vocabulary. They can send emails and FEDEX packages in advance of their arrival and progress can be made without anyone even knowing what they look like.
A theatre manager can't administer from afar and sight unseen based on inventory lists, census data and other transmitted information. They have to walk around the facility and physically assess assets and liabilities, they have to drive around town and get a sense of the community, they have to make personal contact with people.
Now my alternate theory is that given reports I have read noting that theatre managers rarely get a chance to review the latest literature on myriad topics related to running their organization, no buzz is being generated about management superstars.
One thing I have heard often which backs up my "good management is local" theory is people expressing admiration for managers at their organization or organizations in their area. It is these managers with whom people have regular contact that they wish to emulate.
My answer to the student's question about big names will probably encompass a bit of what I have written here as well as the names of some management theorists with whom I believe managers should be familiar.
I present these questions here as a challenge to my blog readers to consider what your answers might be to this student. And if anyone has any thoughts, I would be happy to pass them along to her.
I don't know why my entries have been revolving around employment and leadership the last couple weeks but here I go again....
I happened across a brief article on BoardSource about assessing an organization's chief executive. As the piece points out, boards go to great pains in the interview process to ensure they are hiring the most capable candidate but rarely set up a formal process by which they can regularly provide feedback.
There are going to be periods of high emotion when the chief executive is either being patted on the back or glared at. Waiting until these times to assess a person is not the most constructive for the chief executive's development and growth, even if one has a positive impression of them.
I should note that the article I linked to partially consists of instructions of how to set up a review process using the assessment tool BoardSource has developed. I generally try to avoid hawking other peoples services specifically if they aren't fairly inexpensive. But having sat on many boards and attended meetings of boards of which I was not a member, I can attest to the number of meetings some boards will take parsing the language on simple amendments to the governing rules. It might take years for a board to draw up an assessment instrument.
BoardSource has an assessment tool that can be completed on a print version or online by board members. Their questions at the very least provide a strong starting point if the board feels the need for a more customized questionnaire.
That said, the online tool while time saving and convenient on a number of fronts is also 4 1/2 times more expensive than the print version. Unless it allows 5-10 years of usage, it seems excessively expensive to process the assessment of a single person. Human Resource professionals can probably speak on the reasonableness of the cost better than I. I understand they need to recoup their investment in developing it, but if it were the only option available, I am sure the cost would present an even greater impediment to evaluating a chief executive for many boards.
For most boards, whether they know about the assessment tools or not, it can be easier to promise a chief executive a similar amount of money as a bonus next year if they improve or as a raise if the valued person stays than to invest weeks completing, collecting and collating an evaluation. Given the salaries and bonuses for profit CEOs are granted by their boards, it wouldn't be surprising if non-profit boards perceived money as the medium by which rewards and severance are conducted.
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.
January 2007 its coming was foretold and a great moan of despair did issue from the people while others cheered and hailed the arrival of the dread behemoth. Many tried to scurry from its path and have just now recognized their failure now as the shadow of the mighty beast falls upon them.
Now cometh the king....
Last week the Honolulu Advertiser ran a story about the impact The Lion King, which opens in two weeks, is having on the local arts community. Back when Phantom of the Opera came to town, the seats at many theatres were pretty much empty.
Having learned from the past, many organizations started scrambling as soon as the rumors started gained credence. Hearing the performance hall would be occupied, the symphony shifted to another venue and the local school which stages a two day holiday extravaganza started making other plans. The annual Nutcracker production lucked out by having the Broadway tour end just before their scheduled performance.
Many of the other performing arts organizations are experiencing ill effects already. Said one theatre manager "It's scary, terrible. We moved up our production (from an original October play date) hoping to avoid overlap with 'The Lion King.' In retrospect, it would have made little difference..."I keep hearing 'We bought our "Lion King" tickets and we're broke,...'"
One group has seen a rise in season subscriptions and other has seen a drop though they attribute that to getting their brochure out late. One group is hoping to fill the house by offering what the Lion King can't--alcohol during a performance. The group plans to perform two shows in cabaret style and offer a standard drink with the show.
A number of those quoted in the article thought their might be a trickle down effect with people getting excited enough by the show that they would buy ticket to the local performances some time in the next two years. There was no mention if theatres saw a surge in the years after Phantom.
I wonder then if it is wishful thinking as one of those optimistic about a trickle down is also quoted as saying most of those who attend the Broadway series aren't regular theatre goers. The intent of his sentence was to state what I am sure is his mistaken belief that those who enjoy musicals at his theatre won't join non-attendees in exhausting their discretionary income at The Lion King.
He also inadvertently points out the reason why his theatre probably won't enjoy a significant attendance increase from trickle down in the near future-- most of the people attending the Lion King aren't disposed to attend live performances. If people there were a trickle down effect from attending a Broadway show, the regional and local arts scene would be exploding as a result of all the bus tours motoring their way to Broadway and Las Vegas.
For most of those attending, The Lion King is an infrequent treat they give themselves and their family. Even though they could all attend a local performance for what a single ticket to the Broadway show costs, that isn't part of their regular practice and may never be unless they know someone in the cast.
So how do things stand for my theatre you wonder? Well we haven't gone on sale yet because we are just making last minute tweaks to a new ticket system. My first show doesn't open until a month after The Lion King does. This might not work in my favor since the buzz about the Disney show will probably reach its apex about that time and fuel additional ticket sales.
Unlike those who were interviewed for the newspaper article, my theatre doesn't produce Broadway musicals so we are at least offering an alternative to that. Our season is also weighted with more shows in the Spring. Now whether there is going to be a enough disposable income around after the Lion King and the holiday season are finished is anyone's guess.
As much as I criticize the trickle down view as naive, there really is no other way to approach the situation but to be optimistic. Doom and gloom isn't going to help. Finding the ways to pitch your strengths over your competition is standard business practice. In some ways, we local arts organizations aren't in much different a position than video game manufacturers who face a competitor rolling out a new console just in time for Christmas. Often they time the release of some new exciting game to show the value of the established game systems. We each have to figure out what our version of that practice will be.
I didn't intend to have a number of entries this week wherein I talked about other blogs but I was visiting the Americans for the Arts website checking on something related to their recent Arts. Ask for More campaign when I caught sight of their blog and decided to take a gander.
They had a number of people attending blogging about their experience at the Americans for the Arts national conference in Las Vegas this past week. There were a couple entries on the blog about leadership training that caught my attention.
The first was from John Arroyo:
"I began to think of this idea and wondered if whether or not we are overdoing it in the leadership field. There are so many institutes and workshops at all levels, but if we truly believe that leaders are self-identified and not tied to a title, when is it over stimulation?"
He goes on to talk about how leadership can be exhibited on all levels and for many an Executive Director position is no longer an ultimate career goal. This partially echoes some of what was being said in the Emerging Leadership program I attended at the Arts Presenters conference. I begin to wonder if there is an interesting shift in thinking and attitude transpiring nationally.
The other entry that caught my eye came from a time prior to the convention from Chad Baumann, Director of Marketing and Communications for AFTA and writer of Arts Marketing blog. In his entry on Artsblog, he cites a recent story noting that the MFA will become the new MBA as the economy increasingly orients toward creativity and expresses some concern about the emphasis the training programs might take.
"As more people compare the pros and cons of the MFA vs. MBA, I only have one major fear: that the MFA will become too business oriented. Arts organizations in the past have been criticized for having managers who didn’t come from business backgrounds. Many have made the argument that arts organizations suffer because they are lead by artists, not business professionals. I have the opposite fear."...I hope that most MFA programs in arts administration provide the necessary business training, but keep at the forefront what makes their students valuable–their artistic and creative abilities. Creativity is the commodity that is in high demand"
Given rising concerns in the arts industry about the lack of succession planning and dearth of qualified people to assume organizational reins when the current leadership retires, I thought a recent piece on the Chronicle of Higher Education on recruitment had some relevance.
The article is mainly aimed at academic departments looking for faculty but there are some basic ideas that are good places to start when analyzing one's search and hiring practices in any profession. Books on the topic may ultimately be more helpful, but reading the article may also make you realize you need to consult those books.
The core focus is on recruitment for positions rather than just advertising them and waiting for people to apply. The author, Gary A. Olson, who is dean of Arts and Sciences at Illinois State University, suggests disseminating information in discipline specific journals and online forums.
The most labor and resource intensive option he suggests is letters soliciting nominations and applications for the position, the more personal, sincere and un-form letter like, the better. Before you dismiss this out of hand as something only big businesess might do, I received two such letters for arts management jobs in the last six months. One was for an executive level position, the other middle management. If it weren't for the fact that I had no desire to be involved in either field, I might have considered applying. More to the point, active recruiting efforts in the performing arts are out there and the practice is likely to become more prevalent.
Something that I would not have really considered which Olson says is mandatory if you really want to sell the position is the creation of a website exclusively devoted to the search.
"Effective sites will contain more than a position statement and a list of committee members. The objective here is to make the site useful for the candidate, not the committee. The search site should contain links to sites that will best promote the institution and the community, so the key question to ask in constructing a site is, "'If I were a first-time visitor to the institution, what information would help me understand what I might be getting into were I to accept a position here?'"
Olson also cautions against various self-destructive practices like succumbing to the desire to grill, rather than woo, a candidate; airing organizational dirty laundry; extending poor hospitality and failing to search for solutions in final negotiations for the position.
What I hope not to see, however, is the emergence of recruiting practices similar to those connected with musical directors in the orchestra world where a very small group of big name people are wooed by multiple organizations to the exclusion of all others. That will only serve to exacerbate the panic over succession. (Unless I happen to emerge as a member of that small group, in which case it sounds like a grand idea.)
Are you a listener or a reader? If you don't have any idea what I am talking about, you may want to take a look at Peter Drucker's "Managing Oneself," an article that has been reprinted in the Harvard Business Review a number of times. I first got my hands on it at the Arts Presenters Emerging Leadership Institute in January and have read it about three or four times since then. (It is only 11 pages long.)
As one might imagine from the title, the main thrust of the article deals with self-examination as a way of self-improvement. What he suggests isn't a "12 Easy Steps to a Better You" program. If anything, he believes trying to adopt another's practices is likely to make you miserable. He also observes that people often think they know what their strengths and weaknesses are but are usually wrong. (So if you are miserable in your current position, read it!)
In addition to knowing ones strengths and weakness, he feels it is important for people to know how they perform. That is where the whole reader or listener question comes in along with learning how one learns, what environments one thrives most in and what ones values are. Then, given your knowledge about how you best operate in relation to these factors, what is it you can contribute? Drucker gives a number of interesting examples of how men like Patton, JFK, Eisenhower and Churchill were hampered by situations which emphasized their weaker areas.
Once you have obtained this self-knowledge, Drucker urges you to recognize that everyone around you is an individual operating in varying degrees to the same criteria, have different ways of achieving success and therefore need different things from you to realize that success.
"Whenever someone goes to his or her associates and says, "This is what I am good at. This is how I work. These are my values. This is the contribution I plan to concentrate on and the results I should be expected to deliver," the response is always, "This is most helpful. But why didn't you tell me earlier?"And one gets the same reaction - without exception, in my experience-if one continues by asking, "And what do I need to know about your strengths, how you perform, your values, and your proposed contribution?" In fact, knowledge workers should request this of everyone with whom they work, whether as subordinate, superior, colleague, or team member. And again, whenever this is done, the reaction is always, "Thanks for asking me. But why didn't you ask me earlier?" Organizations are no longer built on force but on trust. The existence of trust between people does not necessarily mean that they like one another. It means that they understand one another."
Yes, I know there is a certain irony in expecting people who don't learn best by reading to gain maximum benefit of Drucker's message through reading.
I have been away for a few days, thus the lack of postings on my usual schedule. My thoughts have not been far from arts management though so I offer up the following article on the dearth of qualified theatre managers which appeared in the January 2007 American Theatre. The article was scanned and posted by Brooklyn College so some portions of the text may not be completely legible.
Jim Volz echoes the concerns I heard at the Arts Presenters conference regarding succession planning. The primary aim of the piece is to examine the academic and non-academic paths to executive level leadership of theatres. There are a lot of people worried about the lack of highly skilled leaders coming up the ranks to replace those who retire or are lured away.
The shortage of savvy, experienced theatre managers is evidenced by the number of long time managing directors of flagship regional theatres...who have been recently been recruited away or have played musical chairs with other theatres. Oftentimes, there's a demoralizing institutional toll (that's seldom talked about) when management leaders leave their theatres; this definitely has a snowball (or avalanche) effect on the board and the remaining personnel......Tired of the turnover and dealing with what many consider the "two-headed monster," many boards turn to an already beleaguered artistic director to run the whole show."
While sexier areas of acting and directing lure many people of a theatrical bent away from management, the elements Volz and many quoted in the article blame for the shortage of quality managers is that other profit and non-profit endeavors promise better pay and quality of life. Though managers are hardly alone since actors, directors and technicians all experience the same scenario.
A debate that appears throughout the article is whether academic training is necessary for success. Like the Bionic Man I allude to in my title, people can't decide what needs to be implanted by others to make you strong and what muscles one can develop by oneself. Everyone seems to agree that practical experience is an absolute. There is an implication in the comments of some (perhaps due to the way they were quoted) that academic training may not be necessary at all.
My personal view is that formal classroom training in legal matters-contracts, accounting, human resources-- can avoid a lot of serious trouble in the future. Formal training in personnel relations and conflict resolution practices can avoid a lot of heartbreak and resentment in a field where high pressure, long hours and low pay can breed a great deal of both. I can speak from experience that instruction in writing and graphic design elements won't make people into good writers. But unless you are possessed of talent and discipline, you probably won't be offered a paid opportunity to hone your skills with experience.
It only makes sense that if you were teaching someone all these skills, you would place it in the context of theatrical practice with courses on that very subject. There is a high likelihood, after all, that a theatre manager may wear the hats of marketer, bookkeeper, personnel director, programmer and graphic designer. So in my opinion, an academic program with opportunities for good practical experiences can be a real value for a fledgling manager.
One thing that many in the article agreed upon is that managers of the future need to be possessed of management skills and artistic vision. Given that the article mentions managers don't have the time to mentor subordinates or even each other and the report on the field that Neill Archer Roan presented to Arts Presenters said that managers rarely found the time to review and assess articles on the latest research and theory, the only place a manager is likely to acquire these skills is in a formal training program.
In reality, the proficiency that really needs to be acquired is flexible thinking. As students were taking classes to master the classes of an academic program, they should be constantly challenged to assess emerging situations in arts, entertainment in the world as a whole. The act of evaluation should be second nature by the time a student emerges from a program.
While I obviously think people should possess solid training in all the skill and knowledge areas I mention above, John McCann of Virgina Tech is singing my song in the article when he is quoted as saying-
"Today's focus is preparing folk to manage and lead yesterday's organizations...The solution, McCann believes, is to "focus more on leadership competencies and less on functional management training-challenge young potential leaders to be creative, intuitive and open to new ideas."
...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 received an email today from the Dean of the College of Performing and Visual Arts at Southern Utah University, Bill Byrnes. He headed up the Theatre Management program at Florida State my last year there. (Though I was five hours away doing an internship that whole year. He has been good about keeping in touch with FSU grads even after he left and has even enlisted our help providing real life information for his students' projects. I actually lent a hand editing and commenting on the last edition of his Arts Management text.
Anyhow, his end of the year letter letting us know how things were going inspired me to check out the training program at his school. The thing that really caught my eye was the Guide for the Prospective MFA Graduate Student.
The guide answers a lot of the usual questions about assistantships, financial aid and admission deadlines. It discusses why one might want to attend graduate school, what sort of jobs arts administration encompasses and the difference between a M.A. and a M.F.A.
What I really liked was that they were very clear about what types of things they would be looking for on a resume that should accompany the application and they included an appendix that specifically outlined what should appear on the resume.
When I was an undergraduate, I had never held a job for which I had to submit a resume. I can appreciate that even with resources in books and on the internet, trying to put a resume together can be daunting. Many of those resources suggest formats that either aren't appropriate or superfluous for jobs in the arts.
Likewise, they provide guidelines for the topics letters of recommendation should touch upon. Most importantly, they emphatically enjoin applicants not to procrastinate about asking people to write the letters, (with an implication that they may have to bug the recommenders a few times).
I applaud the program for providing some direction to make it a little easier on the applicants (and the review committee). The process is going to be tough enough for the prospects as it is and there will be plenty of other opportunities to screw things up during the process. As the title of the entry says, by providing this guide the training program at SUU is helping the applicant help them admit him/her.
I spent most of today as a caveman, thinking primarily about food and shelter to stay in character (and suffering the comments from co-workers saying it was no great strain upon me to act the part of a caveman). As a result I pondered little of great import today.
However, had I not been pursuing some Halloween fun, I doubt I could have posted anything half as insightful (and from some of the commentary, inciteful) as Drew McManus' second installment recounting his experience working with arts management grad students at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Both installments are a good read, but the second one packs a punch with its discussion of results and conclusions from his exercise. Read both for the full context, but if you only have time for one, make it the second.
Drew has lead this activity before where he has graduate students roleplay a musician bargaining committee for an orchestra. I don't know if Drew had a different scenario than when he was at the Eastman School of Music or if, as people familiar with the orchestra world, the Eastman students recognized the scenario as being within the realm of possibility. What brought the whole exercise the UW to a halt was the students' disbelief that the financial statements they were looking at had any basis in reality.
In Drew's first installation, the mock negotiation team essentially walks away from the table in disgust at the financial mismanagement and decide they are going to form their own orchestra.
In the second installation, Drew recounts his discussions with the students about how the apparently hopeless situation the students found themselves in was all too similar to ones with which orchestra musicians are confronted. Reading the entries brought back a flood of memories and emotions about a dismal experience I had working at a mismanaged theatre. Symphonies haven't cornered the market on awful decision making.
For all the disillusionment and frustration it brought the UW students, I wish my graduate training program had offered a similar class to us. As Drew says, it helps dispel preconcieved notions and allows future managers to enter the profession with their eyes open. Although, when I ended up having that exact experience, I might have seen it as indicative of how it was everywhere and quit the arts immediately.
I recently came across this example of an employee training manual on Inc.com. The article is a few years old, but the manual excerpts that you can download immediately show that the company (Zingerman's Deli) is interested in making the training process fun and empowering employees to contribute to the success of the company.
It isn't tough to see how emulating Zingerman's general approach for employees and volunteers can contribute to strengthening a relationship with and between them.
Last week Andrew Taylor put out a call for a part-time administrator for the Association of Arts Administration Educators. The comments which followed the entry debated if it were better to require someone to have significant experience in the arts or to hire a skilled administrator from another discipline with a more passing familiarity with arts administration.
The arguments on both sides being compelling, I can't really decide on a general rule of thumb about whose resumes should be ranked more favorably by a search committee. I am, however, more and more convinced that having a clear sense of what will be constructive in advancing the organizational interests.
A month or so back I mentioned that the Honolulu Symphony got a new board chair, Curtis Lee. When I was listening to an interview with Mr. Lee, he mentioned how in his business customer service was the most important element. Since up until a week or so before taking the board chair post Mr. Lee headed a company owning the most car dealerships in the state, I cynically thought that this sentiment probably only applied up until they sold the car. For some brands, they have the monopoly and the next nearest dealer is 2,500 miles away.
Last night I had the misfortune of parking my car in the path of a man who is apparently offended by drive side view mirrors because he walked along smashing them. (My friends and I were lucky. There is another guy out there with homocidal thoughts toward tires and has been walking along the street slashing them.)
So this morning I drove down to the dealership to see if I could get my mirror replaced. I have to say I was a little shocked by the level of service. There was a man out in the driveway 20 minutes before the repair shop opened processing arrivals and directing them to open lanes. In the lanes I was greeted by another person who further processed and advised me about my repair very quickly. I got out of my car and someone moved it to another queue as I entered the lounge.
The lounge was HUGE. Coffee, danish and copies of the newspaper were situated at three locations. Comfortable seats were set in front of a flat screen television. There were also 6-8 cubicles with phones at which a person could work on a laptop computer and free WiFi service.
Two gentlemen entered the room and announced that one courtesy shuttle was heading west and the other east and began taking destinations and phone information for pick ups in the afternoon. It turned out there were more people needing rides than the shuttles would fit so they grabbed additional people from the office and keys to other vans. Destination was about 1/4 past their service area but they drove me anyway. (It was interesting that they chose Sam's Club rather than the college I work at as the furtherest point.)
Unfortunately, the part needed for my car was nowhere to be found. Fortunately, the part actually needed is about $300 cheaper than anticipated. When I disembarked from the return shuttle I was handed a form with an appointment for repair already arranged and my poor car and I were off.
Now granted, one of people in the shuttle followed a remark about how wonderful the whole experience had been with the observation that our bills would let us know just how grateful we had been for the good treatment. The implication of his tone was that the extra $50 would be more palatable having received efficient and attentive service.
Mr. Lee may not know too much about symphonies. Dealer cash back incentive programs aren't viable for classical music.(Unless Toyota is going to pay people to attend concerts.) But it will bode well for the Honolulu Symphony if he brings lessons learned in the car business to their organization. (And, of course, if the symphony takes them to heart.) A good experience can make the $60 paid for seats more palatable.
I have already started to formulate plans for small steps we can take to make our events more welcoming based on the experience I had today. Good lessons are where you find them.
I saw a very interesting article on board composition in Arts Presenter's online version of Inside Arts Magazine. (Have to provide email address to read.)
The piece essentially tackled the idealism vs. practicality issue in relation to age of board members. While everyone strives to have younger people on their board, the reality is that the young folks often aren't far enough along in their lives to offer a non-profit board the time and money (or social contacts with money) that more..seasoned..members of the community can.
Despite some ancedotes which support the idea that older people more easily meet the board requirements of many non-profits the article stresses the importance of making the effort to attract younger members. Their involvement in the board would have to recognize that they need time to raise families and aren't able to meet the Give, Get or Get Off criteria at this stage in their lives.
Certainly it is just as important to recruit the right young members as it is older members and not just bring them on board because of their age. The article mentions quite a few benefits younger members can bring as well as pointing out some erroneous assumptions.
Give it a read.
I recently learned that playing a hands-on role in things and having a small staff doesn't necessarily mean one is hearing about all the problems that are occurring. I am frequently busy during a performance and can't be watching everything. A year or so ago I put a folder full of House Manager report forms in the front of house office. I didn't want my house managers to feel they had to go to the trouble of writing up a report on every show if it was uneventful so I told them they need not bother with them if everyone is showing up on time, there are no problems with equipment, lights aren't out, etc.
I really didn't get many reports. While I was occasionally curious as to why I was not, it wasn't necessarily strange. The house management office is equipt with supplies and tools necessary to change light bulbs, replace paper towels and fix leaky toilets. Other problems may be resolved by talking to the tech crew. Our ushers know what the dress code is and how they are expected to act. Likewise, many of our renters return year after year and are acquainted with the house rules. The reports I did get didn't really illuminate anything I needed to be concerned about.
Then the technical director pointed out that all the Exit lights in the theatre had burned out. I spoke to my primary housemanager reminded her to look out for those types of things and put them on a report sheet so I could submit a work order to have them replaced.
I soon came to realize that she and the other house managers forgot the report sheets were there. Since giving my reminder I have received report after report that have essentially painted a picture of renters who were not holding up their end of the contract in relation to front of house activities. And, of course, on further investigation I discovered that these problems stretched back for some time prior to this zealous surge of reporting. For some reason the house managers decided to keep their tortured experiences to themselves.
Discussing these problems and potential solutions took the better part of two hours at a staff meeting today. Despite the fact renters sign a contract where they have specifically initialed next to the lines outlining their front of house responsibilities and have had us reiterate these specific responsibilities and their importance in a tech meeting a month prior to their event, people are shirking them.
The solution we hope to implement is a multi-tiered approach which include simple steps like more insistent scowling at the pre-show tech meeting and more involved mandatory requirements at later stages. As I mentioned, I have a small staff so the necessity of enforcing these mandatory requirements adds additional responsibilities to the numerous ones we already bear.
I am hoping six months worth (it is only half the renters who are real problems) of growling, scowling and enforcement of strict requirements will ensure that some of these groups are better organized during future visits making for a more enjoyable experience all around.
A plea to folks who might be tempted since I can't say I know anyone doing this.
Many times granting organizations ask that receipents write to their Congressional delegates to make them aware of how National Endowment funds are being used. Often the granting organization provides a template in order to make it easy for busy arts administrators to get a letter off.
My plea to people is not to use those form letters. Even if you don't think your senator or rep is ever going to read it, there are good reasons to send an original composition. My entry today is actually inspired by a form letter I received in response to my "NEA funding at work" letter. It was signed by an aide who said he would speak to his boss about my missive but the generic tone made me think he says that to all the boys. I could see why it might be tempting to send a template based letter if that is all you could expect in return. With that in mind, I thought it important to say Don't Do It!
First, you shouldn't do it because the granting organization put some effort into securing those funds to pass along to you so you owe them a little effort to help get the money next year. (Even if you just spent hair pulling hours filling out interminable final report forms.) It doesn't take too many people in one district sending in letters before even a lowly intern recognizes that there is a template involved. The effort appears insincere and weakens the case for funding in the future.
Secondly, even if people aren't reading your letters, investing the time writing something real helps you hone your advocating skills on behalf of your organization. This practice is doubly important for people who feel they don't write well. It is good practice communicating in a serious situation and if you can't express what is important about your organization to your senator, you probably aren't doing a good job telling your story in press releases.
The truth is, even if you are getting form letters from your congressman, you never know who is reading them. If you tell a compelling story about why a performance was important to members of the community, you are often telling your delegate why the funding is important to them. A year ago I did an