Welcome to the “Moving Arts Leadership Forward” Blog Salon
Posted by Mar 14, 2016 2 comments
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s new report, Moving Arts Leadership Forward, describes a changing arts leadership and workforce. Americans for the Arts, in partnership with the Hewlett Foundation, has asked a diverse group of arts leaders to respond to the report’s findings and the recommendations it makes for the field. In the next couple of days we will be hearing their responses and hope we will be hearing from you in the comment section.
The report begins with this foreword by John E. McGuirk, Program Director for Performing Arts at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation:
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s Performing Arts Program invests in arts leadership because we believe the vitality of the sector is fundamentally dependent on the quality of its leadership. As part of our commitment to strengthening leadership, we commissioned the research presented here to help shape our future investments. But the findings have implications that go far beyond our grantmaking. They show how different generations experience their work in the arts sector, and highlight how the differences affect engagement, innovation, and other factors critical to the success of individual arts organizations and the health of the field as a whole.
At the heart of the findings is a challenged definition of “leadership.” Members of younger generations often see leadership as the fostering of a culture of connectedness, collaboration, and change—they believe leadership is rooted in the efforts of many. This view is in contrast to the more traditional, hierarchical structures and practices of many arts organizations and funders.
What is at stake in this ongoing conversation about the meaning of leadership? Arts organizations must make the most of their talent, or risk driving away potential leaders who are ready to contribute, reluctant to “wait for their turn,” and who have the entrepreneurial chops to find other ways to realize their ambitions. But organizations should also consider the diversity of ideas and experiences embodied by their entire staff, and how embracing these perspectives can help them connect with new audiences and develop innovative approaches to achieving their mission. Leadership that flows from the vision of a single individual has served the nonprofit arts sector well for a generation or more. But to be able to effectively respond to an increasingly demanding environment, organizations not only must adapt, they must be adaptive. Individuals with the responsibility, and the authority, to ensure that their organizations continue to thrive should invite their colleagues—people who care deeply about the mission of their organizations and understand their unique value to the communities they serve—to participate meaningfully in shaping the future of those organizations. In other words, they should invite them to share leadership.
Reimagining leadership is not a call to action that we take lightly. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the insights from a growing body of research that clearly shows it is a necessary one. Change will not be easy, of course, not least because the change required is in many ways antithetical to the more traditional form of leadership that our sector currently embraces. That is why the future of the field depends on what current leaders and funders choose to do in this moment. In sharing our research, we hope to contribute to the broadening of the field’s view of leadership, prepare it for a future that is rushing toward us, and urge our colleagues to seize this opportunity for building an even more resilient and vibrant nonprofit arts field.
You can also read a blog from Mr. McGuirk introducing the report, here.
Comments
For the past year, I have been working on a doctorate in leadership studies and have realized that the arts industry, when it comes to leadership, doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. I applaud the Hewitt Foundation for investing in research into the current state of leadership in the arts industry and its call for a new leadership model. However, I disagree with the recommendation that only gives the industry one model of leadership--distributed leadership--as a solution. Leadership is dynamic and situational: what works for one situation or organization may not work for another. In his forward, John E. McGuirk stated, “Members of younger generations often see leadership as the fostering of a culture of connectedness, collaboration, and change--they believe leadership is rooted in the efforts of many.” Leadership models such as servant leadership or spiritual leadership also address issues of “connectedness, collaboration, and change” and may also be of interest to arts leaders. Stating that distributed leadership should be the new model of arts leadership is like telling a marketing department that they need a new marketing strategy and it should only be Facebook. Moreover, the report only states the positive attributes of distributed leadership. Anyone who has served on a committee that was mostly talk and little action has experience distributed leadership when it is ineffective. Yes, a new model of leadership is needed in the arts industry, but it needs to be one that is flexible and multi-faceted, not one-size-fits-all. The arts industry needs to know its options and the different approaches to leadership, so each organization can create a leadership model, which may be a combination of several models, that works best for them (staff, board of directors, and the community it serves).
The best way to learn anything people-related is to be in an environment where you can put the skills you want to buy custom paper learn into practice and perhaps get some feedback. Just reading about it is not enough.