![]()
It's no easy task in a non-profit world of growing financial pressure. Two essentials: A board must partner with staff, and everyone needs to keep focus on furthering the community mission.
ACT, Intiman, and the Children's Theatre have recently named new managing directors, and the Seattle Repertory Theatre has just named an acting artistic director. It's a time of unusual turnover in Seattle theaters, partly reflecting financial pressures and partly a result of some long tenures naturally coming to an end.
Much is at stake. The people in these positions, whether short term or long term, will be part of shaping the face of local and sometimes national theater. Their work affects what we see on stage and when we see it, how much we see and how well it's done. Their work affects the price of what we see and the convenience of seeing it and the atmosphere of the theatres we visit. Any of us who love theatre should want exceptional people in these roles.
So how do we make exceptional arts leaders? They are forged by a combination of what they bring to the table and what their institution brings. One key factor is the quality of the organization's board. When the hiring is complete, the board must assume responsibility for ensuring that the new leader is able to meet the expectations that led to his or her selection. In the hiring process, the board presumably evaluates the readiness of the candidate for the challenges at hand; equally important, the board needs to examine its own readiness for the challenges and expectations of new leadership and a new partnership.
I've learned, in the course of almost 30 years as the managing or executive director of four different cultural organizations, how inseparable my own effectiveness has been from the effectiveness of the board for whom I worked. Like water, board and staff leadership will seek the lowest level; likewise, there are no exceptional staff leaders without exceptional board leaders. Boards that demand a great deal of themselves, will demand (and get) a great deal from their staff. I have seen myself and my staff driven to extraordinary excellence by vision and spirit within the board and also seen us reduced to frustrating mediocrity by myopia and caution within the board. The difference is not the difference in individual trustees. It is the difference in the collective effectiveness of those trustees.
Almost all the trustees that I've encountered have been accomplished, motivated, well intentioned, and highly intelligent. These are not mediocre individuals. So what makes the difference between the strong boards and the weak board? It is the quality of the partnership between the board president, the managing director (charged with the business side), and the artistic director , and this team's respective capacity to drive the trustees, the staff, and the artists toward common goals.
This non profit structure is not an easy one, which is one reason it often misfires. For starters, the volunteer board is composed of people who are accomplished professionals from every field — except the one for which they are assuming responsibility. That is not going to work well without strong leadership, which must come mostly from the staff — the people who really do know the profession. This is awkward in many ways, not the least of which is a kind of inversion of social status. Yet an effective board has to come to understand that a strong operation is built by the staff leaders, not by the board. To be sure, once a year, the managing and artistic directors should be evaluated as employees of the board. The rest of the year they are partners with the board in building a strong institution.
An effective board also has other roles, beyond improving the operations of the theatre. Building relationships and credibility in the community. Triggering support from that community. Hewing to mission, and clarifying short and long range goals. Again, the board and staff leadership have to work in partnership to build and earn that community and financial support.
Seattle theaters now all face a tough economic climate and intensified competition for entertainment dollars. Times like these put enormous stress on the board-staff relationship. The staff always thinks the trustees should provide more resources, and the trustees always think the staff should do more with less. Neither is a realistic expectation of the other. Yet downsizing and fundraising are both essential to strengthening the organization in an economic downturn, and they must be done together. A board that simply directs the staff downsize to an "affordable" level may be exercising its authority but it is abdicating its responsibility to strengthen the theatre. Downsizing is "easy." Strengthening the theatre while doing so is not. The board has to take responsibility for ensuring that decisions strengthen the theatre in the long run.
Meanwhile, there has been an unfortunate impact on non profit boards from the tightened board oversight roles mandated by Sarbanes Oxley. True, only a few innocuous provisions apply. But financial oversight has become such a priority that it sometimes trumps furtherance of mission as the key focus of the board. Oversight is of course important, but it alone is a non-productive activity that propels nothing forward. It can blind a board to its own need for self reflection and assessment. Uncorrected board weakness in turn will define the parameters for the whole organization. Such a board will unknowingly calibrate the institutional aspirations to the limitations of the board, rather than calibrating the institution to the vision of artists and interests of the community.
"Furtherance of mission" is the key to everything. The legal responsibility of the volunteer board is to ensure that resources are directed to the mission that earned the tax-exempt status. The job is to protect the mission. The Board is drawn from the community, not from the theater, because its responsibility is to the community. Financial oversight, fundraising, donating, and hiring staff leadership are all important roles of trustees. But none can be carried out effectively if furthering the purpose of the organization isn't kept front and center.
Serving the community means that the best boards operate like a huge deep dish antenna, facing out to the community — receiving information about the community they serve and transmitting information about the theater they represent. How the board deals with what it hears and how the board transmits what it knows determines the reach, scope, vision, and potential of the organization. If that deep dish turns inward on the organization, the result can kill any forward momentum. And the community is the victim.
Over the years, I've developed some identifiable traits of the boards that inspire the best work of staff and build great organizations for their communities.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Aug 28, 10:33 a.m. Inappropriate
Bravo!: Susan Trapnell's comments should be required reading for all who serve on non profit boards, in and out of the arts. Such volunteer work comes from the heart, but as with anything that is worthwhile, it is also a commitment of mind and body.
Posted Thu, Aug 28, 10:41 a.m. Inappropriate
Excellent piece: Trapnell's article is excellent and should be shared with every not-for-profit arts and cultural organization in town. My own 30 year career in managing arts and cultural organization leads me to nearly identical conclusions. I now have the priviledge of serving on boards and find that Trapnell's list of good characteristics applies the boards of social service organizations, museums and cultural organizations of every type. Putting this conversation in the context of our local theaters is timely and appropriate for Crosscut. The conclusions are, however, far reaching and should be understood in the broader context of the uniquely American not-for-profit board.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
Trapnell's are a bunch of tired platitudes: the likes of which are typical for Seattle and a theater scene which produces nothing of national note, nothing leaves Seattle, except some artistic directors who come here, take a sniff ,and depart as quickly as is feasible. Trapnell's is the kind of "process" prose and thinking guaranteed to produce mediocrity. Money won't buy you happiness nor will it buy you theater that is half way central in importance to people's lives.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 10:23 a.m. Inappropriate
I thought Susan's article was clear and insightful. An interesting glance into the workings of a non-profit for those not used to the non-profit world, and a level headed assesment for those who want their non-profits to work. With 25 some odd years in the non-profit arts sector, I've come to understand that its always a balancing act between visnonary artistic enthusiam and hard headed business realism. Susan's peice lands on the side of pratical realism and recognises that without the bucks, there are no Buck Rodgers.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 7:26 p.m. Inappropriate
difference except to the eateries. it's not essential to the intellectual life, whet there is of it, in the city. or any other aspect of the city's being. so all this fund raising and and hand wringing is for nought.
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 5:34 a.m. Inappropriate
Laurence Ballard
Posted Sun, Sep 28, 9:46 p.m. Inappropriate
"The study, part of a national survey of the arts, is the first to single out the city of Seattle. It also compares its arts activity with that of similarly sized cities around the country.
The Seattle survey is based on data collected from 69 Seattle nonprofit arts and cultural organizations, and 415 event attendees, during 2006. About 37 percent of the audience members polled came to Seattle arts events from outside King County.
Some key findings of the survey:
• The $330 million in economic activity includes $211 million in spending by arts organizations and almost $119 million in event-related spending by arts audiences.
• Seattle's arts create 7,992 full-time equivalent jobs, with $177.8 million in resident household income.
• The arts here also generate $12.3 million in local government tax revenue and $14.4 million in state government tax revenue (including taxes paid by both arts organizations and their audiences)."
From: seattletimes.nwsource.com/
html/entertainment
/2003736418_survey06.html
And perhaps, if one believes theater and the arts have the potential of having an intellectual/cultural impact on our community, one could take constructive action, including constructive input, towards realizing this potential. You're right Mike, without interest, support, input, feedback, the arts of any community can become mediocre, off topic, because it under those circumstances artists and organizations are shooting in the dark. The mission of any non-profit, in order to qualify as a non-profit, is to serve the community. If it isn't serving you, providing you with "theater that is half way central in importance to people's lives" (your words) and you don't tell it why, you'll remain living surrounded by such mediocrity at your own doing. Go a step further than responding: communicate your interests so they can be realized.
Just my thoughts, I thank you for yours.