Nonprofit Arts Leaders: Why Proclaim a Manifesto of Change When You Don’t Want to Risk the Consequences?

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – proverb, origin unknown

You don’t really want to change your nonprofit arts organization, do you? After all, you’ll lose business from all those wealthy white people who prefer their exclusivity, won’t you? Some may donate (to show “allyship”) perhaps, but most won’t. The most ludicrously elite of them prefer the private rooms, the intimate access, and the power to show off their support (as one would show off Dolce & Gabbana, but not the actual evening gown). Or they slum it, right in the faces of those that need their help the most.

Risk and change harmonize in a woven rhapsody of free jazz. Without meter, without rules, they start at different places in the organizational structure and somewhere along the line, they entwine themselves into a single, radical bop. Music that is not for the faint of heart, like the piano and saxophone line on the following from Lincoln Center’s Jazz Academy:

Change and risk sound laudable and dissonant. They are laudable and dissonant. Real risk based on real change might cause dizzying financial loss (in the short run) for the average arts yacht dependent on its wealthy – often supercilious – supporters. Conscience dictates that when you have to do the right thing, as defined by diversifying, equitizing, and including under-represented communities in your set of stakeholders, you have no choice but to risk and change.

Unless you don’t want to, that is, in which case you can be easily swayed by lost $$$.

Regression is the sincerest form of unctuousness.

Smarm for charm.

Betray for pay.

Board chairs, executive directors, artistic directors, and development directors of nonprofit arts organizations are not known for their entries in the latest “Profiles in Courage.” At best, they’re Eddie Haskell.

You get the idea.

So, referencing the initial image in this article, should your change be subtle?

In a word, no. Obvious and bold will the win the day here, because incrementalism will offer the opportunity to kick the DEI can down the road.

You’re already taking the risks necessary to be a part of a just society by implementing a rigid DEI policy, right? Your bottom-line financials are at risk, not to mention your reputation as an arts organization (whatever you believe it is, anyway). Then why would you place an unnecessary risk on top of that?

As my grandmother would have said,

In this case, “buying trouble” would mean taking the unnecessary risk that social justice groups will not believe you have any intention of changing for the better. If they see only subtle changes (or none at all) why wouldn’t they believe that your company is stalling, hedging its bets, and just waiting for this movement to blow over. The truth is, every change in dynamics – whether it’s social justice (DEI), format (online), or any other bold change you need to make – leads to the same conclusion, despite your best efforts otherwise. That conclusion?

DEI is neither a both/and proposition nor a zero-sum game. You can’t diversify your stakeholders without alienating many of your toxic stakeholders. But you won’t alienate all of your stakeholders…unless all of your stakeholders are toxic.

Elitists, by their very nature of wanting exclusivity, will not want to participate in something they believe is open to the public at large. They will no longer trust your Eurocentric organization to present Eurocentric or white American art. And if that is what they signed up for, they will simply leave.

And that’s okay. You don’t want to associate with toxic people like that, regardless of their donation potential.

(Note to development director: sit down.)

Don’t rationalize toadying. The purpose of a nonprofit is to help solve a societal problem, not kowtow to the donors. Donor-centric fundraising never was intended to let the donors solve the problem; it was intended to inform the donors how well you are attacking that issue. Toxic extortion is only good for your bottom line, not the company’s. Your job will change quite a bit as these changes take place, just as the marketing team’s will. And the board’s. And the ED’s. And everyone else’s. Because it’s not about you.)

Subtlety, when it comes to change, manifests well as a means of deflecting impact on individuals who are change-averse (which is the majority of people). For example, if you plop a change in software package on an unsuspecting staff, expect blowback, hard feelings, anger, and entrenchment from your employees. You probably have and they probably did.

If you have harmful, clannish silos within your organization, simply implementing mandatory meetings between fiefdoms is not going to make any difference. Sadly, they’ll just become more resentful…toward you. Getting buy-in – slowly, one by one – is the only way to build toward the kind of incremental change that defeats cliques.

Or, you could do what high schools do with their cliques. Fire everyone after 4 years.

In these examples, slow, gradual, subtle change makes sense. However, when you are dealing with change in mission, structure, programming, activities, and impact – the central pillars of any nonprofit organization – obvious and bold are far more effective.

Why?

When you slowly, subtly invoke change in mission, the period of transition time is the barometer of trust for new, diverse groups. Take too long, and they won’t believe you’re serious about eschewing bad acts. Inevitably, you’ll lose contact with both groups – elitist and people-driven.

Like a dry swimmer on a hot day thinking about diving into a pool without knowing its temperature, the time between standing on the pool’s edge and the initial shock of cool water can cause great anxiety. But within seconds of immersion, the body adjusts and the temporary briskness of the water makes way to a feeling of welcome refreshment. Adrenaline flows and endorphins are released.

Change works the same way. Immersion will become your best tool, because it will prove that you do have the wherewithal (a.k.a. cojones) to be a better organization, building a better community, lifting the lives of those who have heretofore been underserved, under-represented, and forgotten.

In case you were wondering, there is a change between the two photos in series A above. The contrast setting is 50 in the left version, 52 in the right. But honestly, who cares? The change is so subtle as to be trivial.

If you’re wondering about the change in series B, please go to your nearest ophthalmologist.

Don’t be a trivial organization when it comes to doing the right thing. As always, that might mean that you have to leave. That’s okay – bettering the community is the job, not being employed. It doesn’t matter who does it, as long as it gets done. (That goes for your board members, staff, donors, and other stakeholders as well.)

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

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. And, of course, that elusive Perfect Opportunity?.

If you're interested in meeting him, just shoot him an email. In the meantime, please join the 501 (c) (3) Guru LinkedIn group and add your ideas to the brainstream.