Well I am back from the Western Arts Alliance Conference with much to tell. The first a controversial plan WAA has to change the format of the conference.
As I noted in my last entry, because the plenary speaker had to cancel, the Marketplace Committee report scheduled for Sunday was delivered on Wednesday instead. This was lauded as a happy incident because it would allow people to discuss the changes throughout the conference.
By annual membership meeting on Sunday it became clear that it might not have been such a good thing to have people talking about it all conference because people were very angry.
The proposal for the change is found in WAA Celebrates 40 Years of Community: A Commitment to the Future.
The biggest problem people had was with The Commons proposal. Instead of continuing to replicate the pipe and drape format that even Comdex follows, the taskforce envisioned something less structured.
The pipe and drape format, they felt, commidifies what the artists and managers exhibiting have to offer. The presenters walk around and get to pick and choose who they will talk to while the exhibitors stare longingly from within the confines of their booth hoping to make eye contact while the presenters try to avoid the same.
Under the new proposal, artists/managers/agents might set up shop in different formats. Perhaps in a suite, perhaps at a bar, at a table in a common area, etc.
I had a discussion with someone about this on a shuttle ride to a venue. Ultimately, a change of format will probably be necessary as younger people enter the field. People will be communicating via cell phones, text messaging, Blackberries, etc. rather than walking up and down rows. They will flock to showcases as word gets around about what artists look most exciting. Brochures and DVDs will be replaced by presenters asking artists to send them a link to a Bittorrented movie of their work.
The problem was, the taskforce didn't offer any solid vision of what this commons would look like. Before the meeting on Sunday, I heard presenters opposed the change because it took power out of their hands, but at the meeting it was mostly artists/managers/agents who voiced their criticism.
Among their concerns were-
-If artists/agents were set up in bars, how would presenters know where to find them?
-If they were set up in suites, the line between the haves and have nots would be extreme. William Morris and CAMI would be able to fete presenters in style and comfort while others would bankrupt themselves just arranging for a room.
-If the Commons were going to be available for meetings around the clock, did that mean the small artist who only had one person representing them would have to exhaust themselves sitting there 14 hours a day?
Currently, the resource room where the exhibitors are is only open for 2-3 hour periods before and after professional development meetings and showcases. This gives insures the majority of people, including exhibitors have an opportunity to devote their attention to just roundtables, just showcases and just discussing possible performances.
I suspect the Commons being available all the time just means managers and presenters could arrange to meet outside of the offical time in that area rather than people always being "on." They turned the lights out on an agent and I while we were talking because they wanted to encourage us to move on to the showcases. In the future this theoretically wouldn't happen. (I actually went to dinner with an agent and members of my consortium)
I actually had an entirely separate problem with the proposal. However, I followed an irate agent who was flabbergasted that the conference administration had actually originally considered waiting until Sunday to present this proposal to the membership so my complaint was probably forgotten pretty quickly.
I was actually impressed by this agent's fervor. He represents a rather prominent dance company and, as he pointed out, hardly needed to be at the conference to get bookings. He said he showed up to lend support to the other artists. I have to admit, the fact his company is represented there does lend to the sense that one can contract quality artists at this conference.
My problem was mostly philisophical. The suggested changes would mean that the conference would end up in California permanently. LA, San Francisco maybe San Diego and Denver are about the only cities in the region that might have a hotel large enough to house a conference since they seemed to be so set against, as the association president put it, returning to the ugly cookie cutter, conference centers with bad lighting and loud ventilation. (I really felt bad for the conference center staff standing in the room.) The fact the conference would be able to take advantage of the wonderful theatre facilities at Disney Hall, etc was lauded.
My comment was this- LA and Disney Hall doesn't reflect the conditions in which most of the presenting membership operates. Like me, they are in smaller, less well appointed facilities located in smaller cities. There is more benefit to the membership in seeing venues like the National Hispanic Cultural Center (gorgeous facility and ironically, contains the Roy E. Disney Performing Arts Center.) and KiMo Theatre because we can walk away from them with applicable ideas about running our own theatres.
Just in case rumors that came to my ears about the conference permanently moving to LA bolstered by the denigration of conference centers were erroneous, I asked a person on the Marketplace Task Force who refuted my view in meeting point blank if I was wrong about the permanent move.
While he allowed that there was a slight chance that they could be talked into going back to smaller cities, he pretty much doubted it would happen. (This might have been his personal preference rather than an expression of the prevailing attitude since he really appeared to want to turn the conference into APAP of the West. (You want to talk about an atmosphere of commidification, attend that conference!)
It will be interesting now to see how things pan out in 2008 after the LA conference.
Today was a good day on many levels.
I got to sleep in a little because I was going to a meeting of my booking consortium in town so driving in to the office only to have to turn around and drive back an hour later didn't make sense.
The consortium meeting was essentially called to provide an opportunity for those who aren't attending the Western Arts Alliance Conference next month to discuss what types of groups they would like those of us who are attending to watch for.
Many of the attendees at the meeting brought along season brochures for their upcoming season and passed them around proudly. (Including me!) Since many of us are hosting the same performers, it was interesting to see each organization's interpretation of the same artist.
Ironically, as Mr. Budget, I was looking at the interpretation first. I brought a couple copies of the other brochures back to my graphic designer and her first observation was about the amount of money the other places must have to afford such extravagant brochures.
I honestly thought her simpler design was much more powerful than the more expensive pieces. You get it in the mail, you open the first fold and BAM! the image there is so captivating you want to pay attention to the rest of the information.
The funny thing is, I gave her the same budget as last year. Then I purposely wrote less in my letter to patrons and in the descriptions so that there was more room for images and white space.
She comes back with a design on a much smaller space than last year and I ended up having to cut more text!
On the other hand, it cost about $1,500 less than last year so I edited quite happily.
One of the women at the meeting thanked me for suggesting they put a sampling of the music artists would be playing on their website. (Actually, inspired by Andrew Taylor's post, I had suggested using iTunes to supplement a season brochure, but I will take the gratitude anyway. Unfortunately, her site is a little rough and it is tough to find the links.)
Next good thing was that I really wanted to suggest bringing a performer from last season back next season. I am still getting comments about how good he was, my radio ad rep keeps muttering about his disappointment over missing the performance and it is the artist's 40 anniversary season.
But I fear it might be too soon to bring him back.
Fortunately, I don't have to say a thing. One of my other partners mentions the same thing, I offer some supportive comments and while it isn't a done deal, it wasn't a hard sell at all to get the ball rolling.
Then when I get back to the office, I get an email from an agent saying he believes the group he represents would be happy to attend a reception thrown for them by adoring fans. This is great because not only will the fans be happy, but it will help me promote the show. (Though honestly, it is already selling so well we could be sold out before they even start their national tour.)
The last good thing was sort of a mixed blessing. We had scheduled the meeting for 4 hours but only took 1.5 hours to finish our business. Unfortunately, thinking I wouldn't be back for 3 hours more, my staff moved cabinets and desks into my office so they could clean where they had sat. It was a little hard getting to my desk to say the least.
All in all though, a good day.
The cleaning of a virus on my computer while I was writing my entry yesterday apparently prevented me from posting it. In some sense it was fortuitous because I was posting a follow up to an earlier entry on the Honolulu Symphony's new management structure.
At the time, most of what I knew about the situation was unsubstantiated gossip so I didn't want to post details. Regrettably, most of what I had heard was true according to an article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that came out today.
Due to some conflict on the board, the woman who was going to be the new CEO resigned along with at least one board member. The consultant who suggested the formation of the CEO position was apparently offered the interim president position but has declined.
This whole situation is really a shame. It appears as if the CEO appointee had begun to approach the position with quite a bit of zeal, especially considering it was an unpaid position.
I would have personally been interested to see how the position worked out. I had stated my misgivings in my earlier entry and they were shared by some of the other arts administrators with whom I discussed the developments in the story. But I can't imagine that the consultant, who was once the executive director of the San Francisco Symphony, would have suggested a management structure with the obvious flaws I feared it might have. It would have been interesting to see if his solution was viable.
One aspect of the story I didn't quite like was the implication that people were perhaps using their large donations to get their way. Yes, it is true that people who give 1 million dollars wield a great deal of influence and might often remind people of that fact when things don't go their way.
However, there is no explicit evidence that they did so in this case. It seems unfair that their actions are modified by the amount of money gave (X, who gave $Y did...) while poorer folks just plain take action. It just implies they only based their decisions on money invested while everyone else is motivated by other myriad reasons.
There is something interesting/puzzling going on locally with the Honolulu Symphony organizational structure. I was going to let Drew McManus over at Adaptistration because he is the authority on the strange world of orchestras. But dang it, the whole thing is making me curious so I gotta say something.
And if Drew doesn't like it, well he is 5,000 miles away :P What's he gonna do? He has friend here though. If you hear I got killed in a freak oboe accident, you will know it is him!
Anyway, enough jabbering here is the story.
Honolulu Symphony President Steven Bloom is stepping down apparently to leave symphony management altogether. The chair of the board will be taking over administrative duties until a replacement can be found. Here is the interesting part--they are going to appoint a volunteer CEO of the Symphony who will oversee whomever the replacement is.
According to the Honolulu Advertiser:
"As the symphony's CEO, Cayetano would "oversee the administration of the symphony and ... the president of the symphony would report to and be accountable to her," Jackson said. "But her main role will be building the board and working on fund-raising."
The interesting thing is this. Usually, the president/executive director of a non-profit answers to a volunteer board of directors of which there is a chair. The board sets policy and approves plans for the general direction of the organization. The president/executive director oversees the staff efforts in the execution of these general policies. Often he/she may go to the board for approval of a program the staff has proposed that will help in the pursuit of the organizational mission.
As the top administrator, the president/executive director is usually paid. However, the symphony is proposing an unpaid CEO position to whom this person will report. Presumably, the CEO will report to the board.
A bunch of questions come up. Since it ain't easy running a symphony, how much time a week will the CEO be devoting to the job? Is the president pretty much doing the same as before, but essentially under more direct supervision of a board representative? Will the CEO oversee the staff then as well?
Is current president leaving because he resented the fact someone was being appointed to be his personal watchdog? (According to another article, the CEO position was the suggestion of an outside consultant.) If the person is only supervising the president, it could have that appearance.
But that might be better than the alternative where the CEO is supervising the whole staff. Since it is an unpaid position, the CEO might be part time and some decisions might have to be deferred for her return. Either that or any decision made by the president in her absence could end up conflicting with hers.
This is all wild speculation though. Knowing as little as I do, I wouldn't normally give voice to it. However, I did want to take the opportunity to talk about possible pitfalls in such an arrangement since exploration of management decisions is part of the blog's purpose.
Given that the board chair is only a part-time resident, it might be that they are just looking to have a consistent representative of the board authority on the island.
I am interested to see what the full story is. The articles talk about this person focussing on board development and fundraising. If the CEO is taking some of these responsibilities away from the President, I might applaud the move given my entry on how leaders don't have the time to focus on the organizational future for all fundraising they must do.
Between Drew and myself, I am sure we will get the full story out sometime soon. (Actually, I shouldn't speak for him. I don't know if he is intrigued enough to pursue it himself. I am sure I will end up consulting him to put what I learn in context in any case.)
I have had a report sitting on the desktop of my computer for a few weeks now and have just gotten a chance to read it. It is a report done by The Grantmaker Forum On Community & National Service (now Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement) called The Cost of a Volunteer
The paper was a result of the days after President George W. Bush called for citizens to devote 4,000 hours to volunteer service. There was a concern that the current infrastructure of most nonprofits couldn't support the deluge of so many well-meaning individuals. The Grantmaker Forum made an effort by way of survey to discern what the hidden costs of free labor might be.
Two common approaches to determining the value of volunteer work are calculating the opportunity cost for the volunteer (the gains the volunteer could make if using that time for employment or recreation) and figuring the cost of replacing the volunteer with paid staff.The value-added equation is almost always established as a no-cost concept; that is, that volunteers
simply and strictly augment the capacity of professional staff. This calculation avoids two critical questions: What resources are needed to sponsor volunteers? And where do those resources come from?
The literature review section of the survey results is rather interesting and illustrates the difficulty connected with quantifying the cost-benefit ratio of volunteerism. One study found "a return of between $2.05 and $21.24 for every $1.57 expended." Another said it costs $300 per volunteer and another came in at about $1,000. I suspect some of the difference springs from the type of volunteer programs they studied and the the extent of staff oversight necessary. (Big Brothers/Big Sisters has to do background checks and scrutinize the relationships of adults and kids whereas a theatre might just spend an hour or so training volunteers.)
Another reason why it is hard to quantify the costs for volunteering. It isn't just the salary to pay the volunteer coordinator and the cost of the materials, phone bill, etc that needs to be calculated. It is also the time the other staff members (doctors and nurses in a hospital, for example) spend supervising the volunteers that needs to be included.
One very interesting observation that the study makes is that half of the participants in the survey were unwilling or unable to accept more volunteers at the time. "This finding fundamentally
challenges the assumption that the only requirement to engage more citizens in volunteer
service is an effective call to serve."
The study also points out that behind every great volunteer, there is a great professional staff. They mention that without the support of a well organized staff, volunteer intensive programs like tutoring and food banks would be hard pressed to succeed. Volunteering doesn't just happen, it takes dedication and organization.
When I was organizing an outdoor arts and music festival I needed 500 volunteers for that one day. I had a long to do list, but the daily notes marked on my calendar were the number of volunteers I needed to have recruited by that day to reach my goal of 500 by festival day. If I was falling behind, I would come back to work and make calls to people who had volunteered in the past and hadn't signed up yet. (A good database is also key to good volunteer recruitment!)
Because volunteer managers don't want to waste people's time by not having the staff to provide supervision/direction needed for tasks, they are in the unenviable position of having to turn people away even if there is a huge task to be addressed.
The other problem is that organizations have a surfeit of volunteers at some times (nights and weekends) but few at other key periods of time such as summer vacation periods. Other organizations have fairly involved volunteer training programs and can't easily accept additional people in the middle of a training cycle.
Another observation the report makes is that changing expectations are requiring a shift in the care and feeding of volunteers
The classic volunteer of forty years ago was a housewife who had enough time available that she was able to commit to a regular schedule for her volunteering—four-to-six hours per week. With this time commitment and regular schedule, she could be relied upon to shoulder significant organizational responsibilities. The 21st century volunteer is more likely to be employed, have professional skills to share, have a limited amount of time available, and have greater need for immediate gratification. The 21st century volunteer seeks “short-term assignments with a high level of personal reward.” Today’s volunteers want to see change happen quickly as a result of their contributions and are less likely to commit over a long period of time on a consistent basis.One volunteer program leader explained that 21st century volunteers require a kind of job
sharing approach to their volunteer service. “We do more short-term projects that are more
interesting. People want instant gratification from their volunteer experience.” The classic
volunteer asks, “What can I do for you?” The 21st century volunteer says, “What can you do
for me?”
In some cases, people are looking to volunteer to add to their skills in order to make themselves more marketable. They aren't content with simple jobs like filing papers, but would rather perform a task that engages their skills.
No, this isn't an entry on R.E.M.'s "Losing My Religion". As much as I have championed open book management, I have been wondering lately where the balance is in what concerns/bad news you tell people in your organization and what you keep quiet.
Certainly the people whom you manage are there to help you solve problems so there should be some discussion going on. Also, it is unhealthy to keep certain facts from people (the accountant has embezzled all our money). If you are always smiling and saying all is well when there are clearly issues of concern circulating the office, you lose your credibility with people.
On the other hand, you can share too much information or information that has no bearing on the state of the company and can undermine your relationship with others. For example, saying something like -My greatest fear is that the Earth is going to plunge into the sun. I take massive drugs to prevent me from cowering under my desk but I forgot them today and the corporate officers are visiting. If I start screaming hysterically, could you come in and tell me I have a call on line 5?
But what about the less explicit occasions where you are creating uneasy feelings a little bit overtime with a comment here and there. Obviously, some people will over-analyze comments and see problems where none exist and others will be oblivious even if you standing next to them cackling and rubbing your hands together in a stereotypicaly evil fashion.
It is the people in the middle that you worry about and wonder if in expressing your concerns, you are giving the gradual impression that you can't stand the pressure even though you are just mildly tired, frustrated and cranky.
Often it is necessary to say something of your mood and the causes so that people know to give you a little room and time to yourself and don't assume they are the cause of your scowl. Provided you don't tell them you will ruin their lives and careers if they don't get out of your office or use some other unhealthy expression of your situation, this is a healthy means of communication and relationship building.
One can fall into a trap though of feeling that the more you relate, the healthier your relationship with those you supervise might be. You get into discussions of shifts in policy which are only being explored to weigh the positives and negatives and suddenly people are up in arms because they think these policies are being seriously considered as one more to screw them over. Meetings set aside for informed debate can become open forums where ultimatiums are issued about what the decision had better be.
On other side is that if there is no discussion outside of meetings about what is being considered, people can perceive the secrecy as a sign that the powers that be are secretly planning to screw them over. Soon innuendo and rumors lead you to the same ultimatium issuing.
My joking aside. I do scrutinize my daily actions wondering if I am striking the balance or striking out. While I would love to know if anyone has a good set of rules written down in a book outlining what to say when, it is my strong suspicion that most people are flailing around in the dark as much as I am.
I guess this is why you can often get a college degree in business as either an art or a science(BA or BS) because it is both and neither.
Benjamin Melancon asks an interesting question in the comments section of a recent entry. He asks in my broader experience, how common are arts organizations with elected boards rather than recruited board members.
His particular organization, Amazing Things Arts Center has decided the "only way to begin to answer those questions of balancing money and contacts versus effort and representation, or stability versus fresh talent, or anything else, was to have our board elected by the membership."
My answer to him is, in my broader experience, I don't really know of any. I do know of non-arts non-profits that have elected boards--more on that in a minute. I would be interested to know if anyone else has had experience with elected board vs. appointed. Email me or add a comment.
I think perhaps the operative term in his question might be "community arts organization." This may be something that is more workable in a smaller scale arts operation. The current capital fund drive Amazing Things is doing is for $30,000. It is easier to eschew the bucks and buddies board orientation if you aren't in need of a great deal of money. They may find that things change in the future.
But it does bring up an interesting point worth examining. The one thing that a recruited board has over an elected one is that if you do the vetting properly, you will ensure that the people on the board are philosophically aligned with the goals and mission of the organization. If they don't then you have no one to blame but yourselves.
You don't have the same assurance with an elected board. The best illustration of this fact with a non-profit is the Sierra Club. The last two year's elections have been contentious battles between factions within the club accusing each other of lying to either stifle progressives or promote a racist, anti-immigration agenda depending on which side you are on.
There are such concerns about people trying to stack the deck in their favor by getting their friends to join the Sierra Club, there are proposed amendments to their by-laws removing spaces for write in candidates from the ballot and requiring people to be members for a full year before they can run for a board position.
You don't want to think that will happen in your organization when you are starting it up and it probably wouldn't for many years. However, looking at Amazing Things Arts Center's bylaws (and I am only using them as an example because I don't know of any other arts organizations) all one needs to do is get their friends to pay the $25 membership fee the day before an election or meeting to stack the member attendance in their favor to elect or remove a board member. Since proxies are not allowed, it might be difficult to rally enough support to combat this if one sees this sort of thing coming only the day before.
That being said, the whole process in an membership elected board is much more transparent than it is in an appointed board. Also, the membership feel a greater investment if they can identify with the board member. If power shifts in an appointed board and someone is ousted, it can be difficult to get the membership at large outraged.
Whereas if a large portion of the membership is at a meeting where tensions are running high because $500 was shelled out to allow 20 new people to vote, that is something you remember the next time around. (On the other hand, it can undermine confidence in the organization much more than kicking a vaguely known board member off a recruited board)
So pros and cons to both approaches. I am other folks can think of more. On the whole though, keeping people interested and invested in your organization is a good thing. It is even better if you can get people interested and invested whose bank accounts accrue interest that can be invested.
Having the voices of a number of somewhat less wealthy people to advocate for you can be valuable as well. When I was working in South Jersey, Subaru of America which has its HQ in Cherry Hill, NJ was celebrating its 30th anniversary by giving away 30 cars to 30 causes. They had their employees vote on which organizations to give cars to and the place I was working at got one because of those votes. (I gotta say, those are some pretty nice cars)
I really liked some of what I saw on Amazing Arts Center, so much so that I am gonna devote my next entry to it.
Artsjournal.com had a link to an interesting article on boards today because it deals with some misunderstanding and misconceptions about serving on a non-profit board.
The article from the Tacoma, WA News Tribune is pretty interesting just as a story about how boards of trustees have and have not been instrumental in the closing of area arts organizations.
But as I mentioned, the even bigger value is in first hand perceptions and actions of board members who came to realize the job was more involved than they expected or had been lead to believe. At the same time, the story is a testament to the dedication of board members. One board member took six month leave from her law office to work full time on reviving Seattle's ACT Theatre.
There is also a fairly broad feeling about how much fundraising board members should do.
When TAG closed, board president Mike Jones said he’d seen fund raising as chiefly a staff job. He said it was a matter of principle – that requiring members to give or raise a fixed amount would amount to “buy(ing) their position on a board” – unfairly limiting membership to the elite.TAM’s board, like many, uses a sliding scale, said vice president Judith Nilan. Each donor is expected to raise or give a certain amount. The museum calculates these in advance, and can afford to admit only a certain number of members at lower levels so the board can meet its annual group donation of $100,000.
“Most boards have a give-or-get policy, and if they don’t, they should,” Donnelly said. “What are you there for, your good looks? I’m serious. You bring your skills and talents to a board, but the organization needs resources.”
The old phrase is “give, get or get off,” and trustees’ best donations are connections, said Clare Dowdall, an award-winning fund-raiser who was development director at the Cleveland Playhouse, Alley Theatre in Houston and the American Lung Association in the Southwest.
Unfortunately, the most idealistic view is attributed to the person associated with a failed organization. There are plenty of fairly successful organizations with that same philosophy. Most organizations have to place practicality before idealism though.
I also like the article for the way it mentions the pitfalls of an unbalanced staff-board relationship- the uninvolved board vs. the micromanagers, the immovable fixtures vs. the constantly changing members with no institutional memory.
Probably the moral of the entire article is for boards not to be afraid to ask questions and really dig into the financial/managerial health of an organization.
I have discussed board resources in the past one of the best online resources is BoardSource.org. The value of their FAQ section isn't so much in the questions it answers, but in the issues it gets you thinking (and asking more questions) about.
Yeah! So my assistant started her job today! Actually, she stopped by yesterday to fill out the reams of paperwork that Human Resources uses to greet all new hires--but she actually started working today!!!
Still have some concerns about the visa process and how long she might actually be my assistant though.
But it is out of my hands for the moment.
Anyhow, I am continuing to work on my portion of the strategic plan and have gotten to the part of my job where I must exercise the "co-ordinates with internal departments and constituencies" portion of my job description. (Actually, my job description is three pages long. I don't know if that line is in there, but I have a hard time imagining it isn't in a document that long)
Anyway--
In the old strategic plan, there are a number of unrealized goals (like a 6 million dollar addition to the theatre) that were written in consultation with some other deparments because they would include their participation. Some of them, like creating inservice opportunities for high teachers (I just realized, I haven't written on that subject yet--tomorrow's entry!) and having classes for campus professors that taught them how to integrate the arts into their classes, are near to my heart.
There are other projects I am interested in fairly strongly as well, but these two, among some others, I can envision being accomplished with current staffing. Thus they are more immediately achievable and more exciting to me.
It was interesting running around talking to the people who were nominally involved in the old strategic plan projects because I was trying to talk them into my vision of a program that was proposed years before I got here. They had little to no recollection about these goals and I am here extolling the benefits I percieve in continuing to pursue these goals.
There are a number of projects I am proposing that don't relate to instruction/education, renovation and getting my staff paid a little better. One is a beautification program for the walls next to the stairs in front of the theatre. People have said it looks like a highway underpass so I want to have a biennial mural contest with the local schools where we paint the walls white, have students paint a mural and then start again in 4 years. (There is a big ugly gray wall on either side of the stairs so we would alternate allowing the 4 year period.)
I would also like to develop our database so that we can effectively track ticket purchasing, donations, volunteerism, etc. I am hoping to integrate our ticketing system with the university online system so that it is easier for people to make purchases than it is with the taped together option I have now.
There are actually some other priorities I had which I can't remember at this time. I wish I had thought to bring the paperwork home, but I didn't know I would be writing on the subject.
One great suggestion the office manager made was to set up a database of some sort to help place students in employment situations. While we don't have a formal practicum situation where students are required to do hours in the scene shop to get their degree, they are required to do some for the stage craft class. Most students do the exact hours they are supposed to. But some go above and beyond or sign up for independent study and they get tapped to become student employees.
Apparently the hands on training they get from the tech director is so good, employers pretty much hire people on the spot when they hear they worked for the TD. The office manager suggested we make a list of these receptive organizations, track when they need help or not and then tell the select crew members about the opportunity (and perhaps email the former select crew members)
The most attention demanding thing on my desk these days is a College Strategic Plan form I have to fill out. Essentially what it means is that I have to figure out how what the theatre is doing and what it wants to do fits in with the goals and objectives of the college as a whole.
As reluctant as I am to admit it, this is a good thing. The common wisdom is that most arts organizations write up their mission statement and then put it away in a closet only bringing it out to copy it down for grant proposals. This whole project forces me to look at the mission statement and think about how it can manifest itself in the context of the college mission.
This is not to say I want to do it. I pretty much spent 3 hours today skirting around the edges of it, allowing myself to be distracted from it to deal with other concerns.
Eventually I got down to business and to my surprise, found that I actually had a lot of ambitions that fit into the goals and objectives.
Now my problem is writing justifications for what I want to do. The vogue these days is student learning outcomes and since I am a non-instructional unit falling under a non-credit division. One of the unrealized goals of the last strategic plan was to upgrade the position of the theatre clerk to a classification that reflected the job she actually does.
This time around however, I have to fill in a box that describes how student learning will benefit. I just don't think it would be wise to note that paying for the job she is actually doing will prevent her from venting her frustrations with a shotgun thereby securing the safety of the students.
Speaking of unrealized goals, looking over the old strategic plan and discussing it with the clerk and my predecessor, I came to realize there were a lot of goals in there that other divisions are probably only vaguely aware they were supposed to be accomplishing in conjunction with us.
My predecessor decided to respond to the politics of the college by finding every opportunity she could think of to propose programs and projects, many of which included other divisions and departments. Her strategy was to get the theatre mentioned in as many places a possible so that the 99.5% of the faculty, staff and administration that never attended performances would at least gain the impression that a lot was moving and shaking over there.
So I am reading over the old document and am getting really impressed by the ambitious plans people had. I am on my way out the door to talk to our once and future partners about revisiting these goals for the future when the office manager stops me and sort of sheepishly informs me that she and the old theatre made the goal up with minimal consultation with these other people.
Now I am sitting here thinking what a good idea some of these things are (which is probably why they were among those that made the cut to be included in the last plan) and wondering if I will have the staffing to pull it off and should I maybe go and consult with these other folks in earnest.
Andrew Taylor touched on a topic today that was close to my mind. He discusses a new trend in search processes that is more akin to roleplay than interviewing.
The topic of interviewing processes has been in my mind recently because it appears I might finally have an assistant. (Joining in time for the last two performances now that I have finally gotten half the hecticness under control!)
However, despite my happiness at having found an assistant, I have begun to question the search process. To begin with, despite all the paperwork that had to be filled out, the question of whether she was allowed to work in the US was never asked until after the offer had been tendered. Now I am in the process of filling out visa paperwork because she was still a fairly strong candidate. Whether we can get it approved and in time remains to be seen.
There were also a couple other little things that have happened that have been nagging in the back of my mind about the process that has had me wondering if other elements should be altered. Nothing major, just a few little tweaks that we might be able to effect to provide us as interviewers with a clearer picture of the abilities of the person before us beyond how adept they might be at interviewing.
The way the director of human resources told us to frame our interview questions was as "what if" situations where we could assess the answers rather than as yes/no questions like--"Do you enjoy doing X" The answer may be no, but the person may be very good at doing it. They just truthfully don't enjoy it. Ask a parent if they like changing diapers--then witness the love with which they do it.
What Andrew Taylor points out extends that a bit further--make them perform in the "What if" situation. The only weakness of this approach is that you can only use it in person. If you don't have a lot of travel funds available for recruitment, it may be difficult to give all promising applicants an opportunity to strut their stuff.
A short entry today since a new nephew joined the family a few hours ago.
It occurred to me today that while there are articles, classes or at least textbook chapters on pretty much every aspect of arts management from company to fiscial management, I have never really read any good information on donor relations, specifically wooing them. I was having lunch today for the first time with one of the bigger donors to my theatre. It was essentially just an opportunity for him to meet me as the new theatre manager, etc.
I was taking a fairly low key approach, letting him talk about his trips to Southeast Asia, etc and his 18 years of experience as the grandfather in a production of Nutcracker. The development person who was with us apparently thought the conversation was moving too slow and about 5 minutes into the meal says "So, Joe, tell us about your plans for the theatre." and later "So X, what do you think the theatre should be doing?" And when he got up to go to the salad bar, she started to tell me what to ask him when he returned. (Which I didn't)
I actually had to keep from laughing because it really felt to me like a sitcom where people are on a blind double date with friends and the friend that did the setting up tries to find common ground by commenting on the interests of those who were set up.
Some friends of his told me he was of the mind that he would give when he wanted to give so I didn't feel pressured to really sell him, especially at our first meeting.
Despite the fact that I thought the development person was a little more pushy than was warranted, I was sitting there weighing all my options. Was I being too quiet by letting him talk about himself? Since he has been associated with the theatre longer than I have, I am really in a place to tell him about the theatre and not come off as condescending by telling him things that are patently obvious to him? Should I be talking more about my vision, or now that I have sketched a basic outline of my goals, just allow him to ask if he wants additional information?
In some regard, it is actually easier to be in a situation where you want to make donation request. In such a case, you know the goal of the meeting and you know what the successful outcome will look like. I have been on those meetings and meetings that were precursors to them.
What happened today was more like a meet and greet reception or a party where you mingle and make contacts. Only in this case, you don't have the option of moving on to speak with another person when the conversation lulls. Yet with a development person sitting there, the situation isn't entirely casual either. His/her presence introduces an element of expectation into the mix.
I don't know if there are any correct set of guidelines for meeting with potential and existing donors like "If the goal of the meeting isn't to make an ask of money or aid in recruitment of other donors, then you should be this aggressive, if it is, then do this." I am sure it has as much to do with the local culture and the person as anything else. Some people don't appreciate a run around and appreciate directness, others want to have a relationship developed with them as a person.
If I do find a good bit of text on donor relations, I will let you folks know! (Likewise, let me know if you already found one!)
So I didn't post often last week because I was engaged in a time consuming, sensitive decision making process--Christmas shopping!
However, today I met with my compatriots in the Performing Arts Presenters of Hawaii to continue our block booking process. When last we left our heroes, we choose a slate of performers we felt we wanted to present. At the time, we had sketchy information about how much the artist fees might be and how many people we might end up transporting to the islands. Since we more or less knew who we wanted to present, different members went off to gather more information which bring us to today...
Today we met to discuss our selected slate and try to fit them in to a rough schedule. Some highly desired artists could only come at certain times, others had more open schedules or were not as desired. There was a lot wrangling of schedules to find a series of dates to proposed to each performance group.
Among some of the impediments were the fact that three of us were college presenters with student productions of our own to work around. Some of the other presenters had already contracted other performers that they knew would not be appealing to the whole group and set dates with them. There were also considerations of Hawaiian holidays or community events that entire islands geared up for during which times the public wouldn't be interested in attending shows.
Also, since snowbirds (people who lived in Hawaii during cold winter months on the mainland) comprised larger audiences on some islands than others, it was tough to schedule some performers in the early fall when there would be a smaller potential audience base.
And of course, we worked against ourselves thinking we had found the perfect date only to have someone pipe up, but that is the weekend we already agreed to host Group X.
In the end though, we hammered out what will translate into 80% of my season. There were still some performers that members had to talk to either by phone or at the annual APAP convention next month (which was also one of those scheduling impediments for 05-06 seasons) and more perfomers may be added for future consideration. However, I can now look at perhaps putting a slate of people with smaller financial requirements together myself to flesh out my schedule too.
A couple interesting observations I made:
1) The person I was asked to research came in with a higher rate than other members expected, even with a reduction for block booking and one person had wanted to defer them in for 06-07 any way.
2) On the whole, the slate of acts we were putting together this year had much smaller fees than the current year which is somewhat reflective of the fact that we aren't getting the size audiences we want despite the good economic climate on the islands.
3) With all the research and discussion we have done about some of the acts, there was a little bit of competition amongst people on the same island to be the one to present some of the perfomers. However, when I showed the list of those we would probably be presenting next year to the office staff, they were underwhelmed. It just goes to show the job I must do to communicate what is exciting about some of these performers to my audience.
When I mention the idea of "what is exciting" I don't mean in some esoteric sense like the work communicates the mythical archetypes common to all cultures through music. (Which, as a fan of Joseph Campbell could be interesting to me). Some of these groups are not my cup o' tea at all, but by doing research on them, I found I would be interested to see more of what it was all about.
Now considering most audience members don't engage in the depth of research I did, how to communicate all of this in a radio or newspaper ad is another thing altogether.
A recent article that appeared on Artsjournal about the value or lack thereof of intermissions, and how they might be more pleasant in Pittsburgh than in NYC, got me to thinking about some recent observations.
For some reason I don't understand (though perhaps it was simply related to the number of ushers available at the time) the woman who was the house manager of my theatre before I arrived wouldn't open the exterior doors of the theatre until it was time to allow the audience in to the theatre.
Because I had so many things on my mind and had come from a theatre with a lobby so small that we essentially had to keep the audience outside until the house opens time, I maintained this policy for the first few show. Then I realized how silly this was. I had a lobby with a gorgeous 23' x 104' mural by Jean Charlot and an extensive lobby display commemorating the 30th anniversary of the theatre. I wanted people to look around!
For the last few performances, I have started letting people in as soon as enough ushers have arrived to rip tickets and prevent folks from entering the theatre before we are ready. I am almost glad I had kept people out because I would have never noticed the difference in audience behavior. Before people would rush straight in to the theatre, come out for intermission and then leave at the end of the show.
Now people walk around, admire the mural and peruse the display, discuss all the great performances they attended over the past 30 years and continue when they come out at intermission. The number of requests for brochures and additional information has increased. More people approach me with comments and suggestions (I do a curtain speech so I am easily identified.)
At this stage, I would say the lobby is really a valuable venue in the development of a relationship with your audience and communicating what you are all about as an organization. Now that I have seen the impact of having audiences linger in the lobby, I am starting to think about what I can do for next year when the 30 year anniversary material comes down so I can continue to educate my them about the organization.
Well I must say I am quite surprised. I usually don't get comments on my blog entries with the exception of Drew McManus over at Adaptistration. But after my last entry outlining how my anti-social tendencies are in conflict with my public professional life, I actually got a handful of responses. I guess I need to share personal quirks more often.
I didn't make an entry last night because I was overseeing a performance. The experience seemed well suited for tonight's entry. I talk a lot about insuring that you are providing audiences with a quality experience when they attend shows. From time to time, I talk about performers who really offer a quality product. But I don't think I have ever spoken about quality control performers exert over their product as it were.
Last night was an example of a artist who brought a sense of craftmanship to his music, but also to his show. The group was Mariachi Los Camperos de Nati Cano. The group is lead by Nati Cano who has been performing mariachi for nearly 45 years now. He is recognized as one of the most influential figures in mariachi, shifting it from being perceived as the province of street musicians, to something worthy of international concert halls. About 10 years ago, he was recognized by the National Endowment of the Arts with a National Heritage Fellowship.
Now all this is well and good, but as anyone can tell you, accolades don't guarantee a pleasant working relationship with a person. He was determined to make the show the highest quality it could be. He asked me questions about the audience, would it be made up of older audiences or younger, mostly Latins or a large contingent of Hawaiians? He wanted to make sure he didn't perform songs that were only familiar to Latin families who grew up on the music if there was a sizable contingent of people from other backgrounds.
The truth was, a large percentage of the audience had Japanese surnames. When I mentioned this, he told me that yes, that was about right, when he was last in Hawaii (30 years ago) they had comprised a very large and very appreciative portion of the audience. Then he went back and talked to the band about a set list that reflected this.
It was like that all day. Before the show he and other band members inquired if I was happy with the size of the audience they had attracted for presale. (Indeed!) After the show--did I approve of the performance energy and song selection, was the audience an acceptable size, did I approve of the state in which they left the dressing rooms?
I have had performers ask me if they show and audience size was good before, but the detail to which Nati and his group went to in order to fashion the show and then solicit feedback is one I have rarely experienced. This is probably why he has been performing for 45 years. He is dedicated to good customer service that encompasses both his audience and his employer de jour.
I don't normally listen to mariachi and I don't speak Spanish either. I was listening to the group's CDs to set the tone for their arrival. You forget though the power of a good live event. When you have energy, musical prowess and showmanship in a performance, you end up saying "Wow, I don't know what they said, but I sure know it was good."
You might think that artists and presenters are motivated simply by the best monetary situation they can position themselves in to. Certainly that keeps the doors open and people fed so it is important. But I know for a fact that both artists and presenters talk about their encounters with each other and that can absolutely influence a decision to book a performance and can tip the scales when the money isn't quite what one would want to pay/be paid.
It occurs to me that my suggestions in my entry yesterday didn't really solve the problem of arts organizations feeling forced in to professionalizing their organization. My suggestions really were only applicable for organizations who had just started out and didn't have their own theatre space.
What happens if you are a member of a theatre group that was started back in the early part of the 20th century as part of the Little Theatre movement? Even if your only ambition is to be a resource for the community and the kids in the neighborhood and provide them with a place they can express themselves artisitical on weekends and after school, you face some problems.
Back when your theatre was formed, the community was more focussed on itself. Businesses were run by people you knew and they could be easily approached about supporting you. Now it is all corporate owned. Chances are you don't know the community giving officer when you approach a company and probably won't have much contact with them outside of your project. Chances are also about even that they may not be the community giving officer next year when you go back for an annual appeal.
Banks used to be owned locally and focussed locally as well. Now your bank can easily change names 3 times in five years as they merge and get bought out. Instead of dealing with a local person, you end up sending grant donations in to a corporate office in Delaware or perhaps a regional headquarters.
Instead of talking to someone about giving you a donation and having them stop back to see the results, now you have to fill out all sorts of paper work and are judged heavily on your persuasive writing skills. If you are given a grant, you then have to follow up with more forms typically backed up with survey data to show how you served X number of people or improved the lives of folks in the community.
All these things require you to be organized to such a degree that the move to having a professional staff take care of it rather than shuffling paperwork between committee members homes seems like a logical step.
Only now you find that the people funding you are interested in doing a lot of bragging about how many school children they serve and they want to get as much bang for thier buck so the place that says they can serve 4000 kids for a 10,000 donation is a better investment than a place that does a really great job serving 400.
Then you discover you need to have matching funds. So for the $10,000 you want, you need to raise $10-20,000 from another source, be it donations or earned income. So then there is more effort to expend organizing, tracking and reporting for other grants/donations or ticket income.
It is all a pain in the ass, but you are really dedicated to providing support to the community, so much so that you will start doing things you never intitially envisioned in order to make yourself attractive to granting organizations. Some of it is really great and rewarding, but you are getting tired so you bring on more people to help you out.
Now you see how easy it is get into a situation where your organization is overbuilt as the Artful Manager referred to. You get into a position where you are focussing on preserving funding to things you aren't interested in doing simply so you can divert some resources to the things you are. But you aren't fulfilling your original purpose well because you are distracted by the effort of keeping all the other balls in the air. (And by the way, by this point you are talking about every arts organization.)
I can really see how expectations in today's environment can really put a lot of pressure on organizations to professionalize. I can't see any viable solutions. In an age where governments are dissolving arts councils, I can't see foundations and businesses tasking more employees to going out and getting to know their communities to the point where donations can be made on a handshake.
I absolutely think there is a need for accountability and recordkeeping so that businesses know where their money is going and how it is being spent. Unless a company or foundation is going to have their employees travel around collecting support materials, pictures, etc from small arts organizations and then fill out the paperwork themselves to take the burden off the arts, I have a tough time imagining an alternative at this time.
So I haven't even had the first performance of this season occur and I have already started on the process of picking performers for the next. The Performing Arts Presenters of Hawaii (of which I am now a board member!) had a meeting on Monday to discuss what we saw when we were in Spokane, WA at the Western Arts Alliance conference. I was expecting it would take 12 hours from the way people spoke, but it really ended up taking about 6. (Which I think was actually due to the president limiting presentations and moving things along.)
About 10 of us sat in a theatre watching DVDs and tapes projected on a screen and listening to CDs. We went through the list of potential artists people were considering by category (and there was strangely a bit of debate about grouping Latin and Jazz into the same category--mainly because many of the artists up for consideration seemed to be Latin influenced Jazz or vice versa. After listening and watching said offerings, there was considerable discussion about artists mislabeling their genre in an attempt to repackage themselves.)
In any case, people in the consortium were only interested in about 20% of the artists I suggested alone (as opposed to ones I was asked to pick up information for prior to the meeting and thus knew there was interest in). I would have felt a little slighted that they weren't taking the suggestions of the new guy seriously if it weren't for the fact that about an equal number of proposals by one of the more senior members also met with a lack of interest.
In the end though it might be a good thing since I will only have to take the lead on two or three artists if a number of members of the consortium are ultimately interested in presenting them next season. I will probably approach many of the performers I alone was interested in because I chose them in part for for their small company size and lower fees and so can likely afford them on my own.
Those that many people are interested in I will have to take the lead and negotiate on behalf of the others, collect feedback and information, plan the routing from one island to another on a series of dates (and since the dates for at least one theatre will inevitably fall on a week night rather than a weekend, see how things can be shifted beneficially.) It is probably better for me being new to the scene to avoid too many instances where I have to be answerable to people outside of my own organization and patron base.
One last observation, I don't know if it was coincidental timing or a shift in the Force, but the day after I returned from this meeting, I suddenly had 4 calls from agents asking me if I had considered their material. I hadn't told any of them about the meeting, yet something inspired them to call.
And of course, as luck would have it, none of them represented people we wanted to present so I ended up talking to people I really had no interest in speaking with.
So I haven't started my current season yet and I am already deeply involved in planning the next one. Given that I am new to the position and don't even know how people will react to the upcoming shows, I am going to be making a lot of assumptions about what people like.
Having looked over the materials from my visit to Spokane, I have to submit a list of names of people I would like to present to the president of the booking consortium tomorrow.
Tonight I went over the house of one of my co-workers and I showed them the DVDs and publicity materials for the performers I am thinking of booking. The reason for this was two-fold- One, they have a better sense of what sells than I do. Even though they may be unfamiliar with some of the genres I am looking at introducing to the theatre, they do provide educated viewpoints in a number of areas.
Another reasons is an attempt at the open book management that I mentioned way back in February. I hope to involve/inform the staff about the elements that go into the decisionmaking and budgeting processes in the hopes that they will become invested in improving matters and controlling costs.
It occurs to me though that open book management may not work too well in organizations where people don't have anything to gain or lose. Being part of a state institution, there is no opportunity for profit sharing, bonuses, extra vacation, etc. Turning a profit could result in the ability to buy new equipment or perhaps hiring more people to help out. Or those things could occur if we don't.
Because of collective bargaining agreements, I am reminded that it would take one of them killing someone in broad daylight in front of 10 unimpugniable witnesses and a guy with a camera and yelling "At last my 6 months of meticiously planning has come to fruition" to actually cause them to be fired. So there is nothing much too lose either.
On still another hand, the folks I work with do have pride in their work and are glad I am here with a vision so there is plenty of opportunity to rally their support to cut costs and work more effectively and effect improvements. So I am optimistic.
Okay, by now folks are probably tired of me evoking what I learned at the WAA conference in every entry. However, I forgot this one last bit until I sorted through my papers last week. I had attended a forum on cancellations sponsored by NAPAMA (North American Performing Arts Managers and Presenters) on cancellations.
I hadn't known cancellations was such a hot topic until I attended this forum. NAPAMA has a whole section in their code of ethics devoted to avoiding cancellations and attempting to preserve a good will relationship between agent and presenter if a cancellation has to occur.
There are a number of reasons why cancellations occur according to Patty Milch who lead the discussion,--Force Majeure, tours or funding fall through, directors of presenting organizations change and the next person doesn't honor the contract, less experienced presenting organizations think it is acceptable for them to cancel.
It was actually these last two points that caused the most discussion and relation of anecdotes. Apparently amateur presenters don't know if they ask for a contract, they have essentially orally said they have every intent of presenting this person, save some minor alterations to allow the presenter to accomodate the performer.
According to some stories, people are asking for contracts so they can pass them around a committee table and contract 2 of the twenty they asked for. The agent on the other hand is already preparing an artist's itinerary and working out routing with other presenters based on the issuance of that contract.
These instances turn out badly for all involved because the agent stands to lose face and money, but he will enforce the contract. The presenter gets a bad rep and has the agent/manager glaring and threatening him with legal action.
The other instance is again due to inexperienced people who believe that the decisions of predecessors doesn't bind the organization if the leadership simply changes. If only it were that simple, eh?
The point of the forum was to discuss how the rancor could be avoided and how a better operating environment might be created. Not surprisingly, we didn't really get past the discussion of the problem and no one really had any suggestions for a solution.
One of the many things I am doing these days is trying to arrange for hotel rooms for the many performers who will be appearing on stage over the course of the next year. I figured, since I have 100 people needing about 60 rooms over the course of about 30 dates, I might be able to get a good rate. Wrong. This is partly because the economies of Japan and the US are improving enough that people are traveling and there aren't enough rooms to be had.
However, I also can't get a good rate because of the hoops I have to jump through to get it. I could actually get some very excellent rates via a hotel broker (a savings of $30 a night per room and considering I need 10-11 rooms on average...)--the only problem is I need a credit card to do it, but the university system isn't set up with coorporate credit accounts, etc.
I know this is essentially the trade off in working for a university--you don't have to fear going bankrupt as much, but the fastest you can make a decision is 3 weeks. I also know there are good reasons not to give state employees access to easy credit. However, given that so many transactions are taking place on the internet, state institutions are going to be left behind and left out of the savings. (And god knows, the state could really do with watching what they spend.)
There is a thinly veiled metaphor in there somewhere about how any organization has to keep their policies and procedures fresh and reflective of the current business climate to avoid missing out on easy opportunities to save.
The situation places me in a tough position because I want to cut costs, but the best I can do is the lowest possible price I can get for a purchase order--not the lowest possible price.
The other lesson I am reminded of is the importance of internal communication and networking. Because I am new to the area and haven't made a lot of contacts, I don't know the decision makers to call to get a good rate for my substantial needs. Even when I try to get in a back door and talk to people in marketing and sales, I get intercepted by receptionists who direct me to reservations and those folks aren't interested or empowered to talk about sponsorship opportunities, etc. which might reduce my costs.
Maybe I would be too much of a small fry for the hotel anyway. However, no one is directing me to a person who would make that decision. This is something of a cautionary tale that reminds me to empower my staff to make decisions without consulting me, but that I also must encourage them to bring proposals for interesting opportunities to my attention as well. 80% will probably be people who haven't really thought through their proposal and have nothing to offer, but 10% might have something of potential to offer (even if they too haven't though through their proposal.)
Then of course, there is the other 10% who are out and out crazy and are looking of a whole lot for nothing. Those are the folks you hope your staff sorts out before they get to you...(heh heh)
So today was my first day of work. I had already gone through the introductions and the paperwork filling out phase of the job over the course of the last week or so when I wandered on to campus to use the computers to search for housing, etc.
Today was taken up looking over the piles of papers and handbooks on my desk to find out what sort of job I actually agreed to do. Then there was the long discussions on what the heck it all meant. Fortunately, the interim director was available to discuss some of the more confusing parts.
One of the more confusing sections which was worth learning about was the way the various arts organizations on the islands work out block booking arrangements. The formed an organizations called the Performing Arts Presenters of Hawaii (PAPH) When they go to the booking conferences, one person concentrates on theatre offerings, another on dance, another on jazz, etc and reports back to the group on what they saw.
Later the members decide what acts they are interested in presenting and discuss who will approach the agents with the offer from the interested members of PAPH. They have worked out a whole system of how airfare, hotels, car rentals, etc and even assess a fee that is paid to the member who books the act on behalf of the others.
Not all members of the group participate equally or coordinate closely with the others and will in fact, make their own arrangements. However, the way the members coordinate to reduce their costs can provide a good example for others. The PAPH people do it out of necessity given that airfare adds so much more to the asking cost than someone driving through the region on the way to another gig might. So just think how much more mainland arts organizations could save if they coordinated so an artist was guaranteed work and had the hotels secured as she drove from Boston to NY to Philly to DC to Raleigh, etc.
One thing that surprised me too was that the PAPH members block booked within close proximity to each other. It stands to reason that an organization on Maui wouldn't share the same audience as one on O'ahu. However, some of the acts my predecessor booked are performing one night for me and then on the other side of the island the next night. Now granted, it is a 45 minute to hour drive to the other venue even without traffic, but that was something that was really never done when I was on the mainland---and there are far more people in a 45 minute geographic radius on the mainland than on my island.
Somehow it works and it works well which again makes me suggest that other locales consider it too.
I came across an article on the Inc website titled: An Entrepenure's Declaration of Independence, by Rhonda Abrams.
Because many elements involved in running an arts organization are similiar to running a small business, I saw a number of declarations included here that an arts administrator would do well do heed.
Among them are: "Independence from 80-hour work weeks"--Many arts administrators end up putting their body and soul into the job. (I know I and some of my friends have at least.) Most people do the job because they love it, but when you aren't getting much sleep, you end up resenting your work rather than loving it.
"Independence from overly-powerful customers"--read this one as including patrons, donors, board members, etc. The author's advice is mine as well--diversify your base so falling from grace with one person doesn't put your programs in peril.
"Independence from overly-dependent employees. If your employees are not allowed, encouraged, or developed to make independent decisions, then you're going to be constantly burdened by their dependence. Create a working environment that gives employees responsibility and authority, making certain that employees are also given the training and support to handle such authority. "
That one says it all for me as does the next one...
"Independence from a sour work environment. You started your own business so you could enjoy going to work; you certainly don't want petty office politics, personality spats, and malicious gossip to ruin your daily life. Treat your employees, customers, and vendors with respect, and they're less likely to want to declare their independence from you!"
"Independence from constant insecurity"--Probably the one problem that faces the majority of arts organizations--financial insecurity. I am sure a lot of people would be a lot happier if it were much easier to build up cash reserves/endowments for a rainy day.
There are a few more "independence" points the author makes (from overhead, bureaucracy) that give you something to think about and makes the article worth reading. (It is also rather short and an easy read.)
I hope everyone in the US had a good independence day and will perhaps take this summer (which may be a lull period for some) to mull over how you might declare your indepedence from the forces that assail you.
A month or so ago, I noted BoardSource.org as a resource for board related questions such as how to form one and what it means to be a board member. I wanted to revisit it and take a closer look at what it offers.
While portions of the webpage like the Topic Papers are only available to members ($137/yr, $250 for 2 years), there is still plenty of guidance provided in other areas. One of the services they provide are examples of "governance in the news" where they list a news story and then provide a brief commentary on the implications of the story.
The Q&A section is fairly large and briefly covers a wide range of topics. I thought I would summarize some of the contents just to give readers an idea of some of the considerations that go into non-profit board service.
Assessment, Effectiveness, Strategic Planning-These three sections deal with questions about the board assessing its effectiveness as well as how to evaluate the executive staff member.
Board Development and Composition/Structure-These areas deals with mission/value statements, effective board retreats, board size, term length, diverse membership without tokenism and the governance/nominating committee. The composition area also provides statistics about how many minority and female board members there are in the US.
Board Meetings-This is a large area of the website dealing with everything from how to run a meeting, how often to run them, sunshine laws, parlimentary procedure/Robert's Rules of Order, attendance and minute taking.
Compensation-This section deals with the rare case of board member compensation (non-profit board members do not get paid, unlike for-profit members), doing business with board members and IRS sanctions for exploiting non-profit status.
Financial Issues-A very detailed and very important section that deals with audits, finding an auditor, questions a board should ask about finances and about audited procedures, investment policies, endowments, unrelated business income tax, assessing the budget.
Fundraising-Another big, crucial area that covers questions like: "Should board members be required to make an annual contribution" (and how many organizations do require it?), restricted grants, best solicitation methods, donor recognition, what foundations look for in board governance, case statements and fundraising resources.
Legal Issues-Still another important area for boards. Here they deal with conflict of interest, ethics, proxy voting, Director and Officer Insurance, Form 990, lobbying and political action committees, laws governing non-profits, sunshine laws and finding a lawyer and insurance agent.
Nonprofit Sector-This is just a general information area on non-profits. Talks about what they are, the difference between 501 (c) (3), (4) and (6) status, finding college courses in non-profit management, researching financials of non-profit orgs, etc.
Organizational Issues-Basically covers making the decision to become a non-profit and the paperwork and issues to be addressed to implement that plan.
Recruit and Orient- This section deals with deciding what type of people (profession-wise) will give your board depth, questions to ask potential members, information you collect from members, courting new members and whether to have board member contracts.
Role and Responsibility- Very important section, especially for those who have never served on a non-profit board. This area discusses differences between governing and advisory boards, why non-profits need boards, what to do if you don't agree with the board decision, duties of a board chair, board member sabbaticals, disruptive board members and benefits of board service.
There are also sections (names are self-explanatory as to the contents) on Board/Staff relations, Board Chair/CEO relations, Roles of Committees and Canadian Nonprofit resources.
As I mentioned, the answers aren't very detailed, but they do provide guidances as to where to find specific answers. The Q&A section would be valuable in providing a potential board member a fairly thorough overview of what non-profit board service involved.
I read the last two chapters of Peter Drucker's Managing the Nonprofit Organization last night. Reading it has convinced me that I really need to go out and buy the book because its insights and guidance is too valuable not to have nearby as a reference source.
The last two chapters deal with collecting a good staff of paid and unpaid personnel and developing yourself, respectively. I fear a discussion of the qualities to look for in an employee will devolve into me holding forth as to why I am qualified under his criteria for all the jobs I have recently applied.
I will say that he gives very solid, well considered advice about the process of interviewing and training people. I gained a great deal of insight into where I and others may have made mistakes in our hiring and training processes. He extends the ideas I mentioned yesterday about communication and conflict resolution into creating and developing constructive relationships with staff, volunteers and board members.
The chapter on personal development affirmed I was correct in looking for a different position that would challenge and engage me. Even though things turned out badly for me when my employers learned I was looking around, it was a far better move personally (though not economically) than deciding to stay out of fear of the poor employment environment. (There have been between 60 and 300 applicants for each job for which I have interviewed. I hate to think how many may have applied for those I haven't.)
One encouraging element of my recent experience is that I have really begun to feel that I am interviewing with organizations I deserve and which deserve me. I don't know if it is a change in attitude and perception or if really good organizations are beginning to have opportunities for which I am suited.
Though there might be some more things I could be doing to improve myself. The process of writing this blog and the research it has entailed are exactly the type of self-development activities he encourages. Now to get someone to hire me and pay me for all the experience I have accumulated and all the value I have added to it in the course of writing and researching!
Although I read a great deal, I usually regard the activity as highly personal and don't voice my recommendation of books. However, I obviously do so in this case. It isn't very long, but it packs a lot of useful advice into a small space.
Continuing with the Drucker thread. He says that non-profits don't focus enough on performance and results. He contends that while it is extremely hard to measure, it is more important in the non profit world than in the for profit one.
The question is how are performance and results measured? Most arts organizations talk about educating the community, but they measure success by the number of people who pass through the doors. How many times does an arts organization even survey its adult audience in regard to how much more they feel they have learned since they started attending performances?
Is performance measured by how quickly an audience can be processed? Is it how politely they are handled? Is it how often they return or tells their friends? Is it how diverse the audience is? Is it the size of the audience or the impact you have in the community?
Performance and results are informed by the organization's mission. The problem, Drucker says, is that: "People are so convinced that they are doing the right thing...that they see the institution as an end in itself...Soon people in the organization no longer ask: Does it service our mission? They ask: Does it fit our rules? And that not only inhibits performance, it destroys vision and dedication."
He lists a number of do's and don'ts. His most important do is focussing the organizational information and communication flow. Each person, he says, should be asking what information they need to do their job correctly and what information they can provide others so they can do their job well. This doesn't simply apply to coworkers, but to educating ones supervisors as well. Everyone from the executive to the volunteers are responsible for providing information to others along the chain.
Drucker speaks of setting the standard of success high. It is better to be slow at approaching the standard than to set the standard too low and thus inhibit progress beyond that point.
One of the most interesting parts of his management discussion revolves around decision making. He echos some of my earlier thoughts when he points out that many times executives make decisions subordinates are able to make. The best decision makers make few decisions and they focus on the tough decisions rather than tackling the easy, but irrelevant ones.
His idea is that the best way to make decisions is to try to discover what the true decision being made is. Is it not really about cutting the budget, but actually about abandoning a segment of the institutional mission? Will diminishing the funding of one area essentially make the functions of other areas extraneous and in need of cutting themselves or merging into other areas?
This idea seems to be core to his ideas on conflict resolution. He suggests looking at the real core issue rather than the ancillary ones that lead to people calling each other names.
An example to tie both these idea together-- You may decide to decrease the size of an event to save money. Suddenly half the office is fighting with the other half, shouting that the cuts should come from the other's area. The real issue isn't that someone will have less money to work with as much as the decision signals that the organization's focus will no longer be on a certain segment of the market. That segment may attend 90% of the other events, but the one being diminished is a signature event for that demographic. The ultimate consequence may end up being that the people who dealt with activities for that segment will be dissolved or have their duties shifted to other areas. This is the topic that needs to be addressed, not whether the cut should be shared across the organization instead of borne by one area.
Drucker underscores the need for dissent. He uses the example of Franklin Roosevelt who had the rule that: "If you have consensus on an important matter, don't make the decision. Adjourn it so that everyone has time to think. Important decisions are risky. They should be controversial. Acclamation means that nobody has done the homework."
He points out the dissent is not conflict. In fact, he quotes political scientist Mary Parker Follet who said "when you have dissent in an organization you should never ask who is right. You should never even ask what is right. You must assume that each faction gives the right answer, but to a different question. Each sees a different reality."
To go back to the example of cutting a program. One faction may see the cut as abandoning the character of the organization. Another faction may see cutting it as a path to expanding what is great about the organization. They are both right because they are talking about two different questions-maintaining character vs. increasing efficiency.
He encourages cultivating dissent and disagreement because getting it out in the open lets people feel they are heard and makes you aware of the objector and what their objections are. It provides the manager with the opportunity to come to some accomodation that will help them accept the decision even if they don't agree with it. He also points out that this process can reduce conflict by showing that the people on the other side differ with their point of view rather and are not "stupid or malicious" by nature.
I have to say from my own experience at a few organizations, but for and non profit, that this is some valuable advice. With all the pressures directors and managers face in trying to run an organization, these guidelines are not easy to follow. Having read these chapters, it suddenly becomes clear to me what those who employed what Drucker suggests were trying to do. It also opens my eyes to how they succeeded in many little ways I hadn't recognized at the time.
Good stuff I say!
As I noted in an earlier entry, Peter Drucker, one of the most highly regarded management and leadership authorities in the world has written a book on managing the non-profit organization. I am about half-way through Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices. Though it might be better to discuss