Nonprofit Arts and the Circular Firing Squad: Why? Just Why?

First, a story from a colleague from about 30 years ago. (The names have been changed to protect the innocent. And no, it’s not this writer.)

She was the marketing and communications director for a very large, venerated nonprofit theater organization. Her predecessor had blown most of her marketing budgets on special events during productions, trying to sell packages that included food, drink, and entertainment. The development department also threw special events, often on the same nights, also including food and drink, in order to woo or placate her donors (or potential donors). In neither case did the special events have anything to do with the performance. One-offs all.

The company was a bit of a country club, as are most large arts organizations. Wealthy. Highly educated. Older and white, almost exclusively.

Diversity efforts, even back then, were mostly geared to get people of color into the hall by programming one Black event per year. It was usually an agreed-upon classic or a small, cheap musical. In the 1990s, it became the latest August Wilson play because it had universal themes, ones that did not threaten that same white audience. Calling something “universal” makes it harmless. It’s like calling a play “relevant.” If you have to use the word…it isn’t.

“[August] Wilson’s choice to use universal themes and character types in his work has benefited him greatly in the mainstream theatre. His answer to the question of African American representation is one that does not strike at the nerve of mainstream theatre audiences. Instead, he chooses to present figures that can be considered universal ‘everymen’ and women and to focus on themes that can come from every culture of

American society.”

-- Ladrica Menson-Furr, Ph.D., Associate Professor Director of African and African American Studies, University of Memphis

The company’s all-white, well-meaning artistic team just did not understand why there were no people of color in the audience. They blamed the marketing director, because they believed that she was responsible for selling tickets to the “right” people.

The experienced (but self-serving) development director – pitted against the marketing director by an unqualified executive director to shame her staff into raising more money – was only too happy to giddily chime in and try to play the hero in attracting a diverse audience.

She applied to a major organization for diversity funding for this marketing initiative. After submitting the official Letter of Inquiry, the foundation sent it right back for revisions. They wanted to know the specific expenditures that would be made with the donated funds. The artistic team patronizingly stepped in, forcing the company to devote the entirety of the funding toward production expenses and actor salaries for the one Black play (rather than, say, marketing and relationship-building). Surely, Black people would be impressed and attend all the plays. Even Ibsen and Gurney with all-white casts.

The grant, over a million bucks, happened. The new Black audience, unsurprisingly, did not.

Additional involvement with the town’s Black community was deemed not the purview of the artistic and production staff, so few additional efforts were made to woo them. Even those attempts were transactional, not inclusive, so the audiences did not change. They blamed the marketing director, of course. At a board meeting, right after the run of the first Black play. After abysmal sales, which in hindsight, were completely predictable.

The marketing director could not quit her job fast enough.

This is not about DEI efforts – those columns appear regularly . This regards the circular firing squad in which nonprofit arts organizations willingly participate. Even (and perhaps especially) the financially successful ones. Those emanate from a leadership void, or worse, a leadership abdication.

This is not about silos and fiefdoms. Every. Single. Company talks about silos and fiefdoms . As though the metaphor were just invented. When companies are self-destructive, unwilling to work together, with managers of different departments sniping at each other, and their executive leaders and board members encourage (or at the very least, don’t discourage) that implosive technique – as in all issues that make no sense whatsoever – you have to ask, “Who benefits?”

Bad leaders benefit from silos and fiefdoms, that’s who. Executive directors, artistic directors, board chairs, and longstanding department heads. No one else. Why? Because backstabbing, sniping, and self-serving double-talk are the tools of the intellectually uncurious, the boor, and the bully -- and the technique works to bring potentially good leaders down to their hideous level.

How do you identify a bad leader? Isn’t that what annual job evaluations are for?

“The way human beings make progress is through small steps, not through a bizarre, constrained [performance evaluation] once a year.” – Bob Sutton, professor of management science and engineering at Stanford.

But this is not about the ridiculousness of annual job evaluations either. You should have stopped having those harmful meetings years ago. They’re an old vestige of the top-down, military culture that pervaded the US under Eisenhower in post-WWII.

What this is about, is leadership.

A large arts organization is no more likely to have a quantifiable impact on a community than a small one.

Let that sit for a moment. Don’t dismiss that idea out of hand. New foundation and community leaders certainly aren’t when considering whom to fund.

Large arts organizations sell more tickets, sure. Raise more money, yup. Have powerful board members, famous artists, lengthy institutional histories, built-in media connections, yes to all.

But impact? On the community at-large? The results are in and it’s not even close.

Number of audience members does not constitute impact, otherwise the Yankees could be a nonprofit.

Powerful board members do not constitute impact, otherwise Goldman Sachs could be a nonprofit.

Lengthy institutional resumes are irrelevant. Media connections are less persuasive now that everyone can have a channel.

And what organization would ever choose to be “venerable,” a “flagship,” or “established?” Only one that chooses adjectives and nouns over verbs.

In 2021, “feed,” “heal,” and “solve” are much more powerful words to live by.

Leaders of arts organizations – and you don’t have to be the head of the company to be a leader, but if you are the head of the company, you had better be – your task is more desperate than ever. You have to find ways to sell tickets, to increase attendance, to get the best exhibits, etc. But now, we’re watching to make sure you’re doing that to quantify a better community.

Otherwise, line up in the circle. Ready? Fire. And oh yeah, Aim.

========================

Based in Kirkland, Washington, Alan Harrison is a writer and speaker specializing in nonprofit organizations, strategy, and life politics. His columns appear regularly in major publications and here on LinkedIn. Contact him directly at [email protected].

Alan is always looking for good opportunities to write and consult for nonprofits that need a hand. If you're interested, just shoot him an email.