The A to Z of Arts Management

Reflections on Theory and Reality

Ann Tonks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000032635
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Medios de comunicación y artes escénicas
• Subtopic: Teatro

The A to Z of Arts Management, Second Edition covers 97 topics about the management of arts and cultural organisations.

Each section offers a theoretical and conceptual introduction to the topic, as well as storytelling and reflections about the meaning and application of such theories in the real world. Drawing on the author's past as a manager running media and performing arts companies and her present as a consultant helping Boards and managers, this book covers a wide range of topics, from leadership, motivation and cultural policy to passion, coffee and laughter. This second edition includes even more coverage and stories about the challenges of arts management, and new topics such as harassment, philanthropy and venues.

Written for arts managers, students and Board members anywhere in the world, The A to Z of Arts Management provides information about research and academic best practice in arts management alongside stories about the reality of working in the arts and cultural industries.

C

Change

Introduction

Art is about change. Culture is about change. As Heinze said in an editorial in an Arts Management Newsletter (2013), arts organisations should have the capacity to change – in response to challenges from the environment and because of audience and stakeholder expectations. They should also be organisations where people are encouraged to challenge the ways things are done in order to more effectively use limited resources.

Most of the discussion around change in organisations is about how hard it is. But as it’s inevitable, understanding the resistance to change is as important as creating a resilient organisation that can deal with change. Jim Phills (2005, 162) ran a number of arts leadership programs at Stanford University, and after discussions with the participants, concluded that “the notion of leadership as managing change in order to ensure the continued vibrancy and effectiveness of the organization was a recurring one”. The equally telling point that he made was regardless of that belief, most of the arts leaders loved the idea of stability.

There’s the change we seek, the unplanned change that is forced upon us, and the emergent change that just happens. Organisations change their current activities, they replace them with new ones and they undertake transformational changes, usually with new leadership or in times of crisis. We need to be ready for change. If you don’t want to change anything then you’re probably wrong. If you want to change everything, you’re probably wrong. Even if you only want to make small changes, there will be resisters.

Resistance

In her PhD about the role of theatre practice in facilitating organisation innovation, Pässilä (2012) elegantly captures what she calls the “messy every day politics of organisational life” that get in the way of change and innovation:

the complex feelings and emotions generated through interaction with practitioners and customers; established habits and attachments to routine ways of working that are resistant to change; individual and collective blame, apathy, and cynicism, and the silos created by them; the tensions within hierarchies; and the contradictory role assigned to managers and leaders, which asks them to be both the champions of change and the guardians of the status quo (36).

The list of why we resist change in the workplace when we’re often inclined to embrace changes in our own lives such as new technology ranges from the pragmatic to the psychological. Change can lead to a loss of control, increased uncertainty, potential loss of status or even loss of a job, loss of colleagues and even the symbolism of losing touch with the past. Underlying this list is fear and as a result, some people become intransigent either actively or passively. As well as fear, there’s scepticism (“will it really make a difference?”) and cynicism (“the bosses don’t know what they’re doing”).

Only an intrepid few desire the uncertainty of change over the security of the status quo.

(Welch McCarville 2003, 23)

One will find resistance to reasonable changes, right decisions and logical strategic choices and all of the reasons behind the resistance will be good from someone’s perspective. In organisations, there is what Schien (1988) calls a psychological contract between management and employees. This contract contains elements such as money in exchange for time at work, social need satisfaction and security in exchange for hard work and loyalty, opportunities for challenging work in exchange for high-quality work and creative effort. Schien says that this contact is constantly being negotiated and this can make changes processes difficult when people don’t agree with the change in the contract. For example, when I worked in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, jobs were perceived as being for life but funding cuts meant that departments were closed and positions were lost.

People want to defend their jobs and their work practices and the view from an operational perspective is often different to the view from management. There’s also a natural tendency to resist the unknown. Belief comes into it as well. People may simply not believe that a new strategy will solve a problem or that management has the capacity to implement effective change. And they may be right.

Reading Thomas (2015) reminded me that resistance to change isn’t always bad even though it’s often framed that way in management textbooks. She points out that we do generally admire people who “resist” but that’s usually about politics – resist Wall Street, resist apartheid, resist bad Government arts policy. But in organisations, resisters are usually viewed as conservative or fearful or selfish. Pfeffer and Sutton (2006, 185) note that sometimes “resistance to change is well-founded, well-intentioned, and actually helpful in keeping companies from doing dumb things. Even presumably good changes carry substantial risks because of the disruption and uncertainty that occur while the transformation is taking place.”

Resistance can show itself in outright conflict involving unions and industrial action, but more likely in arts organisations, it will show itself through delays and detachment where staff have no investment in the process or the outcome. Strategies can be practical (withholding information) and fanciful (escapism), verbal (satire, cynicism) or physical (damaging property or deleting files).

Advice on how to get over such resistance includes investing in training and development, finding people who are open to change, creating an environment where employees can voice their concerns, improving communication, confirming what won’t change, including resisters in the planning process, helping people with counselling and the final strategy, using coercion to get things done including getting rid of the resisters (Walmsley 2013; Onsman 1991). Hagoort (2005) has a slightly more positive take on this last point, suggesting that there should be special farewell parties for those who can’t face the new world and want to explore opportunities elsewhere.

While most of the challenges listed under the heading of “change” in management textbooks tend to be the response of individuals to change, Walmsley (2013, 227) points out that one of the biggest barriers for arts organisations is money. Because they tend to be underfunded and under-capitalised and with limited financial reserves, they lack what he calls the “requisite development capital to embark on any meaningful process of change and innovation”.

Another approach to resistance is to “recast [it] as a resource and something to be encouraged – even celebrated – in order to arrive at a new and shared consensus of understanding. The change agent’s role, rather than pre-empting, controlling and eradicating resistance, should be to invite it, encourage it and harness its value” (Thomas 2015, 64).

In other words, reaction to change could be seen as thoughtful, productive or facilitative rather than problematic.

Undertaking Change

The most famous writer on organisational change is John Kotter (1996). His direction for change, quoted in every management textbook I’ve read, consists of eight stages:

1.Establish an urgency for change

2.Form a powerful guiding coalition

3.Create a vision that people understand and aspire to

4.Communicate the vision

5.Empower others to act on the vision

6.Plan for an create short-term wins

7.Consolidate improvements that produce more change

8.Institutionalise new approaches.

A more sophisticated take on Kotter’s advice can be found in Bolman and Deal (2013). They look at organisational change through what they call “frames” – structural, human resources, political and symbolic which add richness and density to Kotter’s model. For example, in order to create a sense of urgency, one needs to involve people and get input (human resources), network with key players (political) and tell a compelling story (symbolic). In communicating the vision, they suggest it’s done not just with words but with deeds such as visible leadership involvement and ceremonies (symbolic) while one builds alliances and defuses opposition (political) (391).

Another famous management writer, Henry Mintzberg (2009) challenges Kotter’s change model and asks, for example, what happens when the driving leader leaves and whether transformational change couldn’t come from the bottom up or the middle out? He’s right to ask those questions but it doesn’t mean that a number of the practical steps in Kotter’s model aren’t worth doing no matter where the idea of transformation starts.

Hudson (2009, 301) says that there are two components central to change management – the head elements (vision and analysis) and the heart elements (people and their emotions). Often organisations will create a plan for change based on good analysis and reflective of the mission but fail to take into account that change is about people even when it’s about technology or structure or output. A strategic change in direction usually means a change in culture and management can overlook the impact of that change. If change by definition leads to uncertainty, it’s important not just to change the organisation but also the way people think about themselves and their capacity to operate in the new world (Hewson & Holden 2011). Sometimes, getting people to re-envisage their organisation will help them come up with ideas for change. Bolman and Deal (2013, 262) talk about the power of the metaphor and give some wonderful examples as organisations imagine what they are and what they might become, such as a maze becoming a well-oiled wheel, a wet noodle turning into an oak tree, an aggregation of competing teams becoming a symphony orchestra.

Where it goes wrong in Bolman and Deal’s (2013, 390) view is when management relies mainly on reason and structure while neglecting the human, political and symbolic elements. Hudson lists a number of common problems under the headings of process (for example, missing out a stage, talking too much and saying too little, writing a memo instead of lighting a fire, no quick wins) and people (disrespect of the past, staff voice isn’t heard, too few innovators, unclear benefits).

As leadership is about taking an organisation forward, each different leadership style is connected to change outcomes. There is no doubt that autocratic and charismatic political leaders can deliver change, but often at great cost (think Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot). Transformational, participatory and relationship leaders are better suited to change in arts organisations. To be an effective change leader you need to be very clear about key issues and flexible about detail, understand people’s frustrations, expect to be criticised and allow time for reflection (Hudson 2009, 326).

Even if you have all these skills in your kitbag, there’ll be challenges which may differ according to whether you’re a newcomer or you’re already leading the organisation. For example, if you’re inside and get promoted, there may be resistance from your colleagues to accepting you as their new leader, your organisational peers may be jealous, you may have a one-sided view of the organisation and have limited experience in introducing change. If you’ve come from outside, you probably don’t have a complete picture of the problems and face a steeper learning curve but you may have a more even-handed approach to the overall picture (Thomas 2008).

The story told by Hewison, Holden and Jones (2013) about the Royal Shakespeare Company is one where change is driven by both an incomer and someone who knew the company well. In reflecting on the outcome, the authors conclude that because organisational change occurs in already stretched organisations and where short-term pressures can distract from pursuing long-term goals, leaders need to be deeply involved in the change process. Through this, they demonstrate confidence and thus may help overcome peoples’ fear and uncertainty.

Examples

There are differences in the capacity to embrace change between arts organisations because of size and sector as well as other qualities such as financial capacity and leadership. For example, established institutions such as art museums are difficult to change because of their history. As De Paoli (2011, 3) says “[a] high degree of institutionalizing leads to the conservation of values [and] traditions”. A new organisation may be more fleet of foot even though their very newness may...