Over the last year I have noticed a change in the reactions by major donors, especially foundations, to serious fiscal problems experienced by important arts organizations.
In the past, if an organization with a history of major contributions to the field became seriously ill, donors would rally and work to shore up the organization until it could clean house, strengthen its board and hire new staff leadership. This was not always a clean or easy process but arts organizations with strong reputations were not allowed to go out of business without a fight.
There seemed to be a belief that organizations with important histories of artistic excellence, or organizations that were leaders in communities of color, should be saved and given a second (or third) chance to create stability. I was involved in such turnarounds at the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and American Ballet Theatre in the 1990s. I could not have saved these institutions without the tremendous support of important funders. The Ford Foundation, for example, played a key role in saving Ailey and the Mellon Foundation was instrumental in the turnaround at ABT.
During this recession, however, funders have taken a harder tone. "When there are well run organizations that are struggling to replace donors who have evaporated, why support those that have poor management, weak boards, and unrealistic plans and budgets," the funding community seems to be suggesting.
It is hard to argue with this logic, but it is also dangerous not to. The line between sickness and health is a slim one in the arts. It can take one competent staff leader or a few energized board members to initiate the process of fixing a troubled arts organization.
Letting organizations like the Baltimore Opera, Charleston Symphony or the Las Vegas Art Museum close comes at a huge cost to their communities. And it is especially sad when they are allowed to disband when their deficits are modest compared to their histories of service.
It seems disingenuous for major funders to chastise or ignore organizations with poor management when these same funders have avoided funding programs to improve the quality of arts managers. We spend billions of dollars to train singers, dancers and actors, and insignificant amounts to train the people who employ them.
I have said it before and I will continue to say it: the biggest problem we face in the arts is a lack of trained arts managers and board members. One can trace the demise of virtually every bankrupt arts organization to a lack of competent staff and/or board leadership. There are many, well-managed arts organizations that are surviving this recession. It is not easy for any arts manager, but those with knowledge and skill are seeing their organizations through this most challenging environment.
Until the funding community addresses this issue of arts management training, they will continue to be faced with organizations of artistic and educational merit that are going to ask for emergency funding and be forced to close if they do not receive it.
Isn't it time to discuss this fundamental problem in our arts ecology?
And: educating our communities and our audiences on why arts is important, how to work with us, and what they gain in a short and long term. Especially young audiences, who look more on online creative content than offline. Therefore, our understanding and implementation of arts management practice should also change...
http://www.lidiavarbanova.ca
Museum directors and trustees can in fact use this financial value to let artworks support the arts, mobilizing finance to elevate culture with Coaccession(tm), my patent-pending business method. Readers interested in how Coaccession lets museums have their Monet and money, too, will want to refer to the early article about the method by Huffington Post writer Victoria Fine: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=113597
Mr. Kaiser, exactly who is "we"? I could be wrong, but I suspect that the majority of American-trained singers, dancers, and actors have financed their own training over the years. Most artists have incurred considerable and disproportionate debt for their training. The actual jobs that the majority of these artists acquire are modest in salary -- if there is a consistent salary at all. Over the years, supply has grown to exceed demand, and this in turn has created an environment where slashing fees, cutting weeks of employment, etc. are applauded by boards as fiscally responsible decisions in a recession economy. These survival mode tactics all too often suffocate meaningful and thoughtful strategic planning.
Kentab's comments regarding "investment in institutional development" and "acceptable institutional costs" are right on the money, in my opinion. Exactly what areas of arts management training should receive the primary focus when boards of directors adopt the mantra of fiscal responsibility coupled with the increasing and dangerous lack of knowledge about artistic quality among the newer generation of board members?
Don't blame the youth for the lack of skills. We exist, and we're taking our skillsets to corporate jobs that give us a chance to survive.
As an experienced professional in the field, the problems I see are twofold:
1. Most arts organizations have the Artistic and Executive Directors reporting as equals to the Board, but with different areas of competencies. All too often, this results in a ship with two captains, one shouting left, the other right, so the ship plows right into the iceberg it wants to avoid. Either the Artistic Director does not comprehend how to make business decisions about their art in a changed business environment, or the Executive Director does not understand the impact of business constraints on the artistic mind and ego, or Boards are forced to be arbiters between the two, which they are simply not professionally qualified for.
2. Executives can only advance their careers by changing jobs to a larger arts organization, so a director used to 20 years in a stable organization may find him/herself in another arts organization, most likely in another city and state, with a challenging business environment, internal issues, and unfamiliar societal dynamics, something they are totally unprepared for.
I have exited the field, because achieving positive results under such circumstances is too frustrating and difficult. Burn-out is the biggest issue in the field.
People behind an organization need to be trained in particular ways. They need to know about the ins and outs, they need incredible customer service skills, and they need cross training so nothing gets dropped. There also needs to be a positive, active energy throughout the organization. I have seen organizations with the required number of board members, but no actively involved board members. The board is responsible for raising funds. Without an energetic board, funds typically do not get raised to the amounts needed.
All organizations need to learn about audience development too. Building quality relationships is key at all times. Training about audience development can take an organization to the next level.
Not only do you need well managed organizations with trained individuals, but you also need to recruit the right people in the first place. A well intentioned board may not be an effective board. A staff member that looks good on paper with all the training documented may not have the personality required for the position. Your donors and patrons will notice if the wrong people are hired.
Thank you, Michael Kaiser, for bringing this issue to light. I look forward to more discussion!