Tips for the Executioners

Laura has a comment based on yesterday's post.  Take it away Laura . . .

-----------------

Most small companies (with small budgets) have artists toiling as their staff. Without pay for administrative work. Their "pay" is the opportunity to do the artistic work. So of course they make time for the artistic work first. And then the administrative work (marketing and the like) has to compete with the other things the artist wants to do with his/her precious little free time (what's left after putting in 8 hours at a day job and 4 at rehearsal). Could be spending time with a partner, children, going to see other shows, knitting a sweater, whatever. And before you know it, this critical plan is getting cut back and adjusted and maybe even forgotten.

I'm not saying it's an excuse. I firmly believe that a company is bound to lose their artistic credibility if their business side isn't in order. And you're going to have to sacrifice to make that happen. I just know in a lot of cases, that's why it happens.

-----------------------------------

I understand what Laura is saying. 

I think understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the people you are working with . . . and structuring your organization around those things is key to using the limited time and energy everyone has as effectively as possible.

I'll use my job as an example.  In our marketing department there are three of us, me (director of marketing), an associate director and a marketing assistant.

When I first arrived in the department there was the typically "feeling out" stage as I tried to figure out the environment around me and the talents of those I work with.

After a few months it became clear, first to my boss and then to me, that the associate director of marketing was a better "Executioner" then I am.  Meaning that she is more naturally skilled at setting meeting agendas, delegating duties, keeping folks on task, etc.

So if you were to come by the office at 11:30 on Wednesdays to see our weekly marketing meeting you would see her leading the meeting, getting updates from everyone (including me) and then making sure we were all on task.

Now if a stranger were to watch that meeting and then get asked "who runs the marketing department?" they would probably say that the associate director does.

And if I allowed it, I could let my ego get in the way and say "Hey, I'm in charge, I should be running the meetings and telling folks what to do."

But that would be stupid.  My associate director is better at those things then I am.  She should do it.

Alright so how does this relate to Laura's point . . .

Some organizations that have artists as admins rarely take the time to access whether the people in those positions are best suited for the task.

And yes, I understand that often artists have to work in SOME admin position as a matter of necessity but it doesn't mean they should just be randomly pushed into a role.

For example, I vividly remember working with an organization that had one of their artists writing their foundation grants.

Long story short, she was a really bad grantwriter.

When I asked the organization head why she was in that role the reply was "because she likes writing grants . . .and no one else wants to do it"

Now I am certain there was a better writer in that organization.  It is that organization's responsibility to identify that person and say "like it or not, you are the grant writer".

Look at it this way, when artists consider who should be casted in a certain theatre role they weigh all the person's talents and then make a decision.  Artists have to be just as critical when accessing themselves as administrators.

When you have the right people in the right roles organizational functions happen both quicker and better.

Or to put it another way, our three person department, improperly structured may take 3 hours to do a set a tasks.

Properly structured, those same tasks may take 90 minutes.  That extra 90 minutes is the time that can spent with family or friends.

Comments

[Laura]

True. Giving people an administrative assignment they're not good at is a recipe for disaster. But even people who are good at a particular administrative role are susceptible to just getting too overwhelmed by all of the directions they are being pulled (or pulling themselves), and unfortunately, the job that doesn't "pay" in either money or artistic fulfillment may be the first to suffer. Theatres cannot sustain themselves without administrators giving 100% all the time. But what do you do when you can't afford to pay people who just want to be administrators? You might be better off getting non-artists running your company. But you have no compensation to offer them. The artists at least you can pay in non-monetary opportunities. It's a system that drives lots of small companies into the ground because they can't figure out how to balance the problem. The company just can't survive without strong administration. So how do you get over that initial hump to where you can start paying administrators? It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

[Adam]

I believe the key to getting over that hump is making the hiring of strong admins THE TOP PRIORITY.

For some arts orgs I have seen, hiring admins is never really a priority . . . the only priority is producing the next play, exhibition, recital, etc.

Sure, those orgs may SAY that they want to pay for admin help but their actions suggest otherwise.

One org I worked with had the situation you talked about, actors in admins roles, everyone stressed as hell.

So I asked, "does anyone here know how much you want to pay for a good admin or two?"

No response.

"Does anyone here know where you would look to hire this help?"

No response.

Now think about this, if I would have asked this theatre what the next show was they were producing, how much the show would cost to produce and where they would find the actors, they would have an answer for me.

But when it comes to similar information for admins there was a sort of blissful ignorance.

I suggested that the company scale back their production schedule for 2 years and focus on:

1. Producing shows their current infrastructure could handle

2. Fundraising (via foundations and individuals) to get admin help.

They hated the idea. The idea of producing less work was toxic to them. I understand the feelings but I also told them that their approach would hurt them over the long term.

Here's my very blunt opinion on this . . . I know of very few arts orgs that couldn't have some level of high quality admin help within the next 12-18 months if they decide that getting that helps was more important then anything else (even producing art).

That's ths sort of long term thinking that helps any org (art or otherwise) thrive over the long term