I have recently begun training on The Clore Leadership Programme. As my career has been predominantly within the dance sector I was offered the specialist dance fellowship, supported by The Dancer’s Career Development and The Linbury Trust. Many of the issues I am looking at over this year are not necessarily dance specific. They are generic to the cultural sector and perhaps relevant to leadership in other sectors.
I have been thinking to myself, “What makes a good arts leader in an ever more rapidly changing environment?” I would like to share some of these thoughts here, starting at the creative ‘coal face’ and debunking some of the myths around artistic creation and management. Using the idea of collaborative working as the minimum starting point, I will then discuss the issues of change and consumer choice in the arts sector and suggest leadership models to counter these pressures.
The Artist and the Executive: An unnecessary history of difference.
An area such as the arts can be very subjective, experiential and emotional, yet also requires logic, strategy and a combination of linear and lateral thought in its creation. There are stereotypical notions, particularly in the dance sector, of the logical, rational, strategic, parental, arts manager working with the unpredictable, creative, emotional, childlike artist. Programme managers, coordinators and consultants working in dance have questioned and challenged these stereotypes. Having worked on both sides of this suggested divide, I have seen many arts managers rely heavily on their creativity in an ever changing and unpredictable environment. I also know that artists have to apply a great deal of logic and strategy to create their work.
These notions, of manager as ‘logical drone’ and artist as ‘flaky luvvie’, do not reflect my experiences. The most exciting work I have seen, whether produced by an individual or group of people, was the result of a successful collaboration between elements of the strategic and impulsive, the rational and emotional. These collaborative forces are needed, now more than ever, for our sustainability as well as our creativity in a post modern world.
Dealing with change, choice and complexity with spontaneity.
As our politicians continue to speak to us of the need for ‘change’ and ‘choice,’ we can also see the ‘choice culture’ continually accelerate in our daily lives through an ever increasing competitive market. The apparent spontaneous, no notes, no auto-cue, ‘off-the-cuff’ speech on ‘change and choice’ by David Cameron at the recent Conservative Party conference, can be perceived as a glaring example of the dynamics of change and their potential influence on our sector. The attempt was clear, to respond to the possibility of a snap election and to demonstrate his potential as Prime Minister through spontaneity and an ability to adapt quickly to new situations.
Initial responses did show an improvement in the conservative’s points rating. When, an equally responsive Prime Minister then decided against a snap election and faced the consequent criticisms, I wondered if these results were anything like either he or Cameron had initially wanted . The point that I see here is that these events are so fast moving (and will have moved on by the time this is posted online) and there are powerful lessons for the arts sector to learn as our environment also speeds up as part of the wider competitive creative industries.
Arts organisations need to be similarly spontaneous and responsive in this changing climate, particularly as many remain heavily reliant on public subsidy. The ability to recognise our dependence on public funding within the dynamics of political change may be one of the key issues leaders need to address in the future, as we seek to diversify our partnerships with stakeholders and supporters of the arts. We will need to ‘expect complexity and produce clarity’ (Common Purpose 2007).
Finding Balance.
Many arts organisations have been doing exactly this by creating ‘buy-in’ schemes, which enhance an idea of a social network of shared value and experience . These schemes are aiming to diversify their funding portfolios enough to begin easing the changing pressures of public subsidy. Additionally, communications strategies to get people to feel a sense of ownership and excitement about the arts have also become key drivers.
These issues will need to be managed creatively. A diverse funding portfolio, put together without strategic thought towards common values and shared experience, can result in a complex array of diverse expectations. Likewise, a communications strategy dictated by audience opinion and expectation could equally inhibit artistic creativity. A sense of balance and direction with these issues can help us make the relevant decisions.
As the dynamics of change continue to accelerate and increase in complexity, developing a leadership metaphor of scales of balance reaches a point where it can become over simplistic and perhaps a little idealistic. The move from relatively predictable patterns for a short period in the last century, to increasingly complex, unpredictable and rapid change has prompted leadership theorists to offer an alternative metaphoric model. A model based on the difference between navigating with a map or a compass.
Navigating without a Map!
John Holden, head of culture for the independent think tank Demos, argues that the acceleration of choice within consumerism has led the public to challenge performance, resulting in increasing pressure for leaders and organisations to re-validate themselves on a daily basis.
“…we can see that the shape and characteristics of our economy are undergoing a fundamental change, in turn affecting the ways that people work, the shape of the organisations they work in and the challenges that leaders face…The first is the shift away from a relatively steady-state, predict and provide organizational model…leaders need to be able to stimulate and manage creativity in a fast paced an unpredictable world.”(Holden 2005)
Warren Bennis, founding chairman of the leadership institute at the University of Southern California, notes the need for ‘adaptive capacity’ in unpredictable environments. He cites psychologist Karl Weick, noting that previous ‘command and control’ leaders of the ‘predict and provide’ model could rely on maps, but in today’s digital age of rapid change and fuzzy focus they need to depend on compasses.
“Maps, by definition, can help only in known worlds – worlds that have been charted before. Compasses are helpful when you are not sure where you are and can get only a general; sense of direction.” (Weick, cited in Bennis 2003)
This idea may initially seem very high risk, carrying potential excuses of unaccountability. Yet the notion of adaptive capacity also requires a strong sense of integrity and judgment in order respond effectively when the outcome is still uncertain . The move from a transactional, ‘command and control’ leadership to an engaging, ‘distributed’ leadership also suggests that it no longer needs to be led by a single individual . On the contrary, as Bennis notes, engaging leadership thrives on “creative collaboration.”
Engaging Leadership: A move from I, Me and Mine to We, Us and Ours.
Earlier, I highlighted the idea of the artist / manager split as unhelpful and suggested a more collaborative perspective. Similar collaborations between arts organisations and stakeholders, the arts and the audience, historical and contemporary ways of working can also benefit from a collaborative and ‘engaging’ leadership approach. The model can be applied to groups of talented people, or groups of talented leaders.
This needs to be managed sensitively so an organisation does not break up into informational silos, with leaders in every department protecting their own mini kingdoms. Several institutions have had to ‘flatten’ their leadership structure as a result of this and start over again. Engaging leadership styles begin with the notion that ‘success has many fathers,’ using systems of collaborative working, giving any voices of opposition an opportunity to voice their doubts and engendering a sense of ownership. After this we can begin to negotiate, “if not their lack of support, then at least their lack of opposition” (Middleton 2007). It may take more work initially and strong negotiation skills, but is a more inclusive approach and potentially more rewarding with more than one mind working creatively on a set of ideas.
The key word here is ‘collaboration’. Artistic creation can then be produced and enjoyed through a sense of shared endeavour, in a complex and ever-changing environment. Because of these fast changing environments, we may not always have a clear picture of exactly where we are going, but we can have an agreed and shared sense of direction and purpose.
As we navigate in this way, we will need to remind each other to lift our heads above the waves of day to day detail, take a wider view and be ready to take an alternative route if we see avoidable obstacles in the distance. We also need to be able to continue without the end in sight, with a collective trust that the general direction will take us to where we initially aspired to go.
Finally, when these journeys become difficult, uncomfortable and complicated, as they so often do, we need the ability to continue to inspire a collective enthusiasm for a common journey. A journey that everyone can relate to, feel ‘a part of’ and want to share.
This, to me, is one of the key challenges of leadership in the arts, as we move beyond not-for-profit missionary rhetoric and carry the message that our art forms are powerful discourses of our own collective cultural identities. They are here to be shared and contemplated, hotly debated and celebrated and are most definitely relevant as unique and diverse expressions of our life experiences. So often in the arts I hear the phrase, “Don’t tell me! Show me!” I believe that we can easily do this by setting engaging, creative and collaborative examples, both through the ways in which we work together and through the work that we create.
References:
1. Carruthers, J. (1999) “Managing Artists” and O’Nions, K. (1999) “How Choreographers Want to be Managed”, in Jasper, L and Siddall, J (eds) (1999) Managing Dance, Devon, Northcote House Publishers Ltd. pp. 31-55
2. Brady, B. (2007) Cameron off the cuff: The conference verdict, The Independent, http//news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3035930.ece (8/10/2007)
3. Summers, D. (2007) I take full responsibility, says Brown, The Guardian, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2186320,00.html (8/10/07)
4. Helm, T. (2007) Gordon Brown admits possible election blunder, The Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/nbrown1008.xml (8/10/07)
5. Common Purpose (2007) Common Purpose Matrix Programme, http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/programmes/matrix.aspx (5/10/07)
6. Kaiser, M. (2007) Institutional Marketing, The Clore Leadership Programme, Kent,
7. Bennis, W (2003) On Becoming a Leader, Cambridge, Massachusetts , Perseus Publishing, pp. xviii, xxii-xxiii
8. Holden, J. (2005) The Culture of Leadership, London, Demos, pp. 1-2
9. Teckman, J. (2007) Flexing your Leadership Style, The Clore Leadership Programme, Kent
10. Higgs, M (2007) On Leadership, The Clore Leadership Programme, Kent
11. Middleton, J. (2007) Beyond Authority – Leadership in a Changing World, Hampshire, Macmillan.
