One or Done

My discussion of Radio M is coming soon, but I wanted to address at least a part of Dan's question from about a week ago:

Here's a (hopefully) interesting question for you: say you're starting a small theatre company, with 7 people (say, 4 actors, a director and 2 designers). Do you follow the AD/MD model and divide whatever meager salary money you have by 2, or do you encourage everyone to take an equal share of the work and give everyone a nominal 1/7 share?

Let me qualify the statement I'm about to make . . .

I'm a former Board member of the League of Chicago Theatres . . .

A former member of the Illinois Arts Alliance advisory panel . . .

Recognized as Emerging Leader in the field by the Americans for the Arts . . .

I have run a small organization working it's way to midsized . . .

And now I have a fairly important role in one of the largest nonprofit theatres in a very large theatre market.

It is with all that background that I say this

The dual leadership model used by many nonprofit arts organizations . . . . pretty much sucks.

Here's why:

(note:  Before I go into my reasons, let me clarify that I am defining the dual leadership model as an arts org of any size that has an executive/manager director and an artistic director that are considered, at least in theory, equal partners.)

Now, to the reasons . . . .

1.  The dual leadership model limits accountability.

Look at the Detroit car companies.  We can say a lot about how they were poorly managed, but when the day of reckoning arrived, who were in the hot seats.

The CEO's.

One person per company.

Not two.

One.

Name me another major industry (outside the arts) that actively advances the idea that two people should be in charge at the same time.

So what do I prefer?

One person who is ultimately responsible for everything.  He or she would hire people to fill certain posts.  That one person ultimately reports to the Board (if it's nonprofit) or investors (if it's for profit) or to themselves if they are running their own thing.

Under the dual leadership model it is way too easy (and way too tempting?) to pass the balls of responsibility and accountability back and forth.  That is rarely a good thing.

2.  Despite the term "dual leadership" most of the time one person is really in charge.  To pretend otherwise makes the organization more difficult to run.

Let me lay out a situation that's common in the arts.

A group of artists start a dance company.  It's a nonprofit.  Because of necessity, these artists act as the artistic staff, admin staff and the Board . . . at least in the beginning.

So one of the artists is acting as Artistic Director, another is in the position of Managing Director.  The positions are designed to be first among equals.

And in the beginning, these equal thing actually seems to be working.  These people started the company together, they have built internal and external relationships together, everyone respects them, etc.

Then, five years down the line, the Managing Director quits.  But hey, we have good news, the dance company can afford to hire an outside person and pay them to be the Managing Director.

So they hire this new person to work by the side of the AD (who has been there since the beginning).

Here's my question for you.  Are the AD and MD positions still "equals"?

Of course not.

The AD has all the institutional knowledge, knows all the artists, Board, etc.

So for all intents and purposes, the AD is in charge.

Or to put it another way, while the company may have originally intended for the positions to be equal, the two people now holding those positions are CLEARLY not equals in terms of the actual power they hold within the organization.

Instead of acknowledging that and putting the ultimately responsibility and authority where it belongs, most orgs play this game where they pretend these people are equal, even though everyone knows when push comes to shove . . . the one with the real power is going to win pretty much every battle they choose to win.

3.  The dual leadership model helps to further the myth that somehow art and business decisions are seperate

It's almost 2009.  The world is infinitely more complex now then it was just 9 years ago.

Yet we still have arts orgs running with the simplistic notion that having artistic decisions over here (run by one person) and business decisions over here (run by another) is the most viable way to structure an organization.

Again, this creates an environment where one side can easily place blame for any challenges the org may be having on the other side . . .

"If we were doing better art we could raise more money."

"We do great art, too bad the business folks don't know how to sell it."

Instead of recognizing what most of us who have been in this game for a while clearly see . . .

Artistic decisions ARE business decisions.

Business decisions ARE artistic decisions.

You know this.

Everyone knows this.

So why are we taking ultimately singular decisions and placing them in the hands of seperate people?

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

One last thing:

Right now is a vital time for many nonprofit arts org.

There end of the year fundraising campaigns are starting

They are making decisions about next years programming

And given the challenging economy, almost all these orgs are going to be faced with some very tough choices.

In times like these, leadership is required.

Not leaderships.

Leadership.

One man.

One woman.

One person who says, "this is what we are doing . . . follow me."

The dual leadership model blunts the opportunity for that leadership.

And to me, it creates more problems then it solves.

 

 

Comments

[Tony]

I think some of that is driven by the infantilization of artists--the notion that no artist is ever capable of running an organization so there needs to be a business head of equal or greater power.

To my mind that might hold more weight if so many businesses weren't as horribly run as a lot of non-profits are.

[Adam Thurman]

Tony,

True. True.

Having the right person in charge is a challenge for any org, profit or nonprofit

[Lindsay Price]

"Artistic decisions ARE business decisions. Business decisions ARE artistic decisions."

Love this! If only people could wrap their heads around this instead of separating the two... how far could arts organizations go?

[Tony]

Yeah, it's pretty simple. If someone isn't capable of doing the job, find someone who is.

This is more directly related to theatre orgs, but I never have understood why stage directing skills are thought to translate directly to being able to run an organization effectively.

You even hear critics calling for a director to "be given an institution to run" because of their productions.

But it's a completely different skill set.

[Chris Casquilho]

From a managing director: Amen. I've been witness to and/or participated in every shortcoming described here.

[Scott Walters]

I agree: the AD/MD division isn't particularly effective. But I don't think the CEO model is, either. IMO, the top-down hierarchy, while perhaps more efficient in the short run, creates a fragmented organization in which buy-in and mutual responsibility is abandoned in favor of a "sorry-it's-not-my-table attitude that ultimately impoverishes all decision-making. If you look at the original question, two models were proposed: AD/MD or shared governance. I'd recommend the latter.

[Adam Thurman]

Prof. Scott,

I guess my concern with shared governance is that it would slow down the decision making process in most nonprofits. This is a huge issue because most nonprofits move too slowly as it is.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have consensus, buy-in, etc. as part of your organizational values. But you can have that with the CEO model, as long as you have a CEO who demonstrates the values the company has.

Here's the thing, most organizational structures fall into two molds:

Small (in terms of size and resources) but nimble i.e. make decisions quickly, adjust strategy quickly, etc.

or

Large (in terms of resources) but slow.

What doesn't work is small (which most nonprofits are) AND slow.

My concern with the shared governance model is that it would create small and slower.