Wanted: Warm body with big checkbook

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on........................."

Board Recruitment:
While we do an increasingly fair job at trying to find the right person to fill our empty Executive Director and other senior management slots, the same cannot be said about our attempts to recruit new Board members.

Ideally, of course, we seek board members who are passionately committed to the goals and missions of our organizations.  Smart, involved people with deep ties to various segments of the community who will be active in helping to increase the capacity of our organizations, improve their sustainability, and be responsible stewards in the discharge of their fiduciary duties.  We want high profile people, solid business contacts, diverse representation and people eager to right our financial ships.  From the perspective of most staff, the goal is people who will get involved but not micromanage; partners in community outreach, fundraising and as advocates and boosters.  We seek people who have some knowledge of the arts and in particular the ecosystem of the given organization, who understand their role, and who bring something to the table as it were.

But the reality is that there are really two principal criteria that invariably govern our decision to invite someone to join our boards:  1) without meaning to sound specious, the main qualification we look for is really just a warm body - someone who will actually show up at meetings and contribute in some way, someone who will accept the position; and 2) people willing to write a check - the bigger the better.  Less important, but an added bonus is if the candidate has a high profile that we believe will somehow inure to the benefit of our organization.

We don't, for the most part, vet potential candidates much more than that.  There are no search firms to do sophisticated board recruitment, and the typical arts organization has no developed policy, protocol or procedure that governs the selection of new Board members.  New potential board members often meet with someone from the Board nomination committee charged with finding good board members in some very informal way and the recommendation to the full Board is invariably to approve the applicant - which the Board almost always does in some rubber stamp procedure with little to no discussion.  Nominating committee members seek out like minded people more often than not from some similar background or network from which the committee member comes, and while there may be some attempts to cast a wide net, that simply does not happen that often.  Bottom line:  almost never does an arts organization reject a potential board candidate.  We can't afford to - the pool is too small, the competition too fierce and the options too few.  And, we have so little time to devote to this enterprise.  We take what we can get and give the whole process precious little thought or energy.

Of course, it is difficult to find a slate of candidates clamoring to join the typical arts organization board.  And that is particularly true for those candidates every organization wants - the well heeled, people of color, business and civic leaders, people with cache.  Large euro-centric stalwart organizations make little attempt to recruit those with small bank accounts (for many the board is a key source of annual revenue and that need trumps the need for board members to be otherwise qualified and bring more than money to the table).  Neither the big cultural institution, nor the average sized arts organization, seriously tries to place younger generation members on their board.  The truth is that the profiles of many board memberships are self-perpetuating - including the questionable practice of re-electing board members to multiple terms.  Unlike the private sector and Fortune 500 companies, too few Executive Directors of our arts organizations serve on other arts organization boards - no time I suspect.  Most board members have little to no understanding of how nonprofits function - or what the challenges they face entail.

Theoretically, board members are responsible for the financial soundness of the organization and for providing expertise and support to the managers of the organization.  The Board sets policy and hires the executive in charge of running the organization.  The Carver principle suggests those are the sole functions of a good board, and that boards really ought not to get involved in day to day operational decisions, program management, or much more.  In reality, boards often ignore those suggested guidelines and see their job as making all kinds of decisions.  That invariably leads to conflicts, poor staff / board working relationships and suspect decision-making.  Many an organization gets into serious trouble because the board and staff are at odds.

Boards vary widely in their number, composition and the way they conduct their business and there is little development of any guidelines (other than theoretical) as to how they might best function.  We are, sadly, all over the map as it were in regards to everything about our boards.  Some boards are great, others pathetic.  It takes the typical arts organization some time to get in place a board that seems to work for it - at least in the short run.  Over the long haul, many arts organizations experience cycles of good and bad boards - depending in large part who is calling the shots.  And on the average board, some members are very active and others very passive; some are supportive, others almost combative.  Our board training is pretty much confined to some brief, and more often than not, meaningless orientation session, the proverbial board handbook with sections on the bylaws, finances and a roster of phone numbers, and the once ubiquitous annual Board Retreat - which seems to have fallen out of favor.

In such a climate, one would think that putting more thought into the recruitment (and then training) of board members would be accepted thinking for every organization.  Yet it seems to me we have been moving away from paying more attention to our  boards; less emphasis on who we want and how we get those people, let alone what professional development we provide them not only at the beginning of their tenure, but during that tenure as well (and the problem there, of course, is that most board members do not want to make that kind of time commitment, and though we want them to, there is no making such involvement mandatory for fear the potential member will simply bolt.  In that regard, we have paid little attention to why people join boards in the first place - perhaps because we intuitively know many, if not most of them, do so for the wrong reasons).   Everything from the number of members on any given board to the frequency of meetings is often an arbitrary and random decision with little thought into it.  Alas, too many decisions about our boards are given short shift.

No, there are few boards who would ever turn down someone willing to accept the invitation and write a check -- no matter how unqualified they may be in every other respect.

We really ought to pay more attention to what a board ought to be, how it ought to function, who we want on our boards v. who we will accept, and what we expect of them once they agree to serve - beyond showing up with their checkbook.   - not as a sector, but as individual organizations. We have moved too far away from understanding their role and maximizing their effectiveness.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit.
Barry

Workplace Autonomy

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on......................"

Autonomy / Creativity / Efficiency and Productivity:
Got an email from Daniel Pink with a piece from the toolkit in his new book "Drive" -- the excerpted piece entitled: "Nine Ways to Improve Your Company, Office or Group" - dealing largely with the question of workplace motivation.  One interesting toolkit suggestion was to conduct a Workplace Autonomy Audit to help get an idea of how much autonomy the people in your organization really have.

Here's the excerpt:
"Ask everyone in your department or on your team to respond to these four questions with a numerical ranking (using a scale of  0 to 10, with 0 meaning"almost none" and 10 meaning a "huge amount".) 
1.  How much autonomy do you have over your tasks at work------your main responsibilities and what you do in a given day?
2.  How much autonomy do you have over your time at work------for instance, when you arrive, when you leave, and how you allocate your hours each day?
3.  How much autonomy do you have over your team at work ----- that is, to what extent are you able to choose the people with whom you typically collaborate?
4.  How much autonomy do you have over your technique at work ----- how you actually perform the main responsibilities of your job?

Make sure all responses are anonymous. Then tabulate the results. What's the employee average?  The figure will fall somewhereon a 40-point autonomy scale  (with 0 being a North Korean prison and 40 being Woodstock).  Compare that number to people's perceptions. Perhaps the boss thought everyone had plenty of freedom - but the audit showed an average autonomy rating of only 15. Also calculate separate results for task, time, team,and technique.  A healthy overall average can sometimes mask a problem in a particular area."

This, of course, presupposes that more autonomy is good - an increasingly embraced proposition in the matrix of organizational dynamic thinking.  From Google to our own creative sector --- new idea generation, the vaulted out-of-the-box thinking, happy, motivated employees and even increased productivity ---are all seen as directly linked to workplace autonomy.  So we obviously want to foster more autonomy and knowing how much our people really enjoy is a necessary precondition.

Having been an employee, the head of organizations both large and small and a "start-up" entrepreneur - I would generally come down on the side of more autonomy is good - too much structure, too much hierarchy, too much regulation and too much micromanagement stifle new ideas and cutting edge competitive awareness.  Moreover, more freedom, more autonomy, more encouragement of risk taking all help attract the best talent in the marketplace, and foster an ecosystem that nurtures idea generation.  And that environment increases loyalty and commitment to the organization and arguably both efficiency and productivity.

That said, I wonder if we are too blindly loyal to such concepts.  Is there not a danger in taking concepts such as workplace autonomy and applying them in blanket terms to all situations in any given sector?  Is not workplace autonomy both a plus and a minus given certain particular circumstances?  Should it not be applied differently in different situations?  What do we know of how it should be applied in those situations?  Is it more valuable in its outcome for those with more workplace experience, or is it more valuable to those not yet jaded by such experience?  Or does the level of workplace experience have any impact at all?  Even at Google must there not be some form to the governing autonomy?  Must it not exist within some constraints so as to give it form and make it meaningful?  After reading the Steven Jobs biography, it would seem Apple was a company wherein autonomy was cherished and promoted, but within very narrow perimeters of the vision enunciated by Jobs himself.  Autonomy was the tool, but not necessarily itself the driver.

I wonder where autonomy fits into the overall best practices for the nonprofit arts sector.  We are of course small businesses like many others, but we are also unique as are all those others.  In terms of applying organizational theories designed to improve our workplace environments, make our employees and our bosses happier and more productive, and help us address the challenges we face - we need to expend some efforts in tailoring and adapting valuable theories to our own sets of circumstances.

Thus if autonomy is seen as a value that is important to the organization, we need to understand how it best works for our organizations within our sector.  If autonomy is embraced, then the first implication is that we need to hire people who are comfortable being given more workplace autonomy.  Not all people are so comfortable, and thus giving those in that profile more freedom does not necessarily yield the desired outcomes.  Do we zero in on candidates for various open positions and seek out those who want and benefit from more autonomy?  Is it even on our radar screens in terms of job searches?

I suspect autonomy is such a powerful factor, that it works better if implemented in stages customized to employee needs and desires.  Autonomy being designated as a positive value doesn't necessarily mean that all structure is a negative.  (Reminds me of the line in Camus' The Rebel:  That "everything is permitted does not necessarily mean that nothing is forbidden." or words to that effect.)


We don't have to invent our own litany of organizational theories that will improve our workplaces; we can adapt those that others have designed.  But we do need to put some thought into those adaptations and individual applications so that they work for us.  However much (or little) autonomy you may want your organization to embrace, it may be of value to you to know how much actually exists right now.  And more importantly it may be something to talk about - as an organization.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

Less is More

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on.................................."

Meetings with Outcomes or "Let's Actually Do Something Already":
A couple of weeks ago I suggested that we really ought to convene several national summit meetings to address specific issues - from getting every state to launch a political action committee to establishment of a coherent national research agenda to cooperatively creating the framework for collaborative leveraging of our numbers to achieve the benefits of economy of scale.

I've been thinking about that and what we do (or don't do) when we gather.  A recent entry from Thomas Cott's blog -You've Cott Mail - on arts conferences echoed some of what I have been feeling for a long time.  (BTW - if you aren't familiar with his You've Cott Mail blog - he curates - on a DAILY basis - thematic entries on a given subject.  The amount of work it takes to do what he does is mind boggling.  Perhaps only Doug McLennan's Arts Journal is more ambitious.  I've been meaning to plug him for a long time.  You really should subscribe to Clott's blog.  I am a huge fan.  While every posting may not interest you, I guarantee you that you will find much to stimulate your thinking over the course of a month.  This is one of my favorite blogs.)

Anyway, the first entry in Cott's Friday, January 6th blog was a comment from Eleanor Turney in the UK Guardian:  She writes:

"A group of like-minded people gathered in one place could put serious weight behind something and make a practical difference. However, many of the recent [arts conferences] I've attended have not taken advantage of this fact. These events have, at best, been a showcase of great work without much other content and, at worst, been mutual commiserating or back-scratching. I know big conversations happen, around the country, daily. Arts organisations are innovating, taking risks, finding new methods and partners for collaboration. So why doesn't this creative, intelligent, forward-thinking attitude translate into organising good conferences?"

For the most part, I enjoy the national arts conferences.  I attend several each year, and have had the pleasure to blog on many of them.  For me, as for many of those who have been doing this as long, or longer than I have, the chief benefit of these gathering is to network; to connect with old colleagues I haven't seen for awhile, and to meet new people.  I think there is great value in this even though I lament that more people cannot attend, that the days are mercilessly crammed with way too many sessions and activities, and that most of the content of these gatherings is not very useful.  The exchange of ideas that goes on between sessions and at the social events is really the most valuable part.  That is where the real ideas are happening.

Virtually all our conferences follow that same tired agenda formula:  One or more "keynote" speakers with great resumes who often inspire us with their rhetoric, but more often than not don't offer anything of practical use or value.  (And increasingly - to me anyway - too many of these keynoters have little to no understanding of who we are, what we do, and the problems we face and so they try to simply model their "stump" speech to fit the arts).   Then there are countless sessions often organized around generic themes - from marketing to advocacy, from communications to the 'state' of things in a given area - philanthropy for example.  To be fair, every conference will have a few gems -- where the content is above the 'bar'.  The Holly Sidford presentation on cultural equity and the James Irvine presentation on 'engagement' - both  at GIA this year are examples of sessions that raised important questions and sparked true and meaningful dialogue after the event.  Factual presentations on data at other conferences are always helpful, but for the most part, our national gatherings are not designed nor geared to 'outcomes' that tackle specific issues.

That's what bothers me.  Even the national and regional policy convenings that take place from time to time do not center around a specific challenge wherein the entire purpose of the gathering is to come up with some sort of specific response to whatever the challenge might be.  We ought to convene a wide representative sample of who we are and sit down for a two or three days with the intent to arrive at a concrete plan to deal with a given issue.  Not a general discussion full of platitudes and lofty aspirations, but a gathering that is charged with coming up with a specific outcome to address the issue at hand.  If we need a national policy on what our research agenda ought to be, then why can't we have a national meeting to do just that?  No keynoters, no panel sessions, no trips to the local museum -- just hard work for days to come up with that agenda.  That would be a most valuable contribution.  Yes, it would take a lot of work to organize and structure, but the value would clearly justify the effort.

Our national conferences are principally about 'branding' for the organization that organizes each one. They are about positioning.   I have no quarrel with that.  For some, but probably not most, a secondary objective may actually be to make a small profit.  They are an enormous amount of work to pull off, and increasingly expensive to attend (and I think we would all be stunned to know the bottom line figure for the cost of the aggregate of our national conferences), and while I firmly believe, as previously stated, that there is great value to them - they do not ever really address issues in any but the most perfunctory way.  They are largely 'talking heads' preaching to the choir and churning information already widely available elsewhere.  For the neophyte and the newbies, they obviously have great value.  To the more senior and seasoned veterans who make appearances not much new is learned, and almost nothing accomplished.  

I have great faith in the thinking power of the arts sector leadership.  Unquestionably there is a vast reservoir of keen insight and creative problem solving capacity within our ranks.  Why are we not tapping into it to come up with real plans to deal with real problems - as a sector.  Why can't we get those people together and over several days come up with ways to address the more serious, pressing issues that we face - one at a time?  Easy - no.  Hard work - yes.  But I believe that the tens of thousands of arts managers around the country would applaud presentation of such specific plans to them for their discussion.  We need to develop a national response to some of these issues.  The challenges we face - together and as individual organizations - have national implications and can't really be meaningfully addressed except from a national perspective.  

Maybe a national council of all the heads of the national organizations (a temporary, if not permanent creation) ought to have a summit meeting to talk about how to work together to design, develop and deploy some national approach to at least three or four priority issues.   Rocco - maybe you could make this happen!  Surely we can meet together and at least create the framework for actually dealing with some of these national issues.

In too many ways it seems to me that we are stuck in doing things they way we have always done them.  In too many ways we are squandering our assets while we 'talk' to each other about the same old stuff we have talked to each other about for a long time now.  And most of that talk is talking 'around' the pressing issues.  We need to convene to address the issues head on.  

If nothing else, perhaps the national arts organizations might consider focusing on just one central issue at their next conference and center all the sessions around coming up with some concrete proposal (with specificity) to address that issue.  No?  Well about just being less ambitious in trying to touch on every single topic even remotely germane to what we do and simplifying things.  More free time would mean more networking at least.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit

Barry

When Ignorance Begets Confidence

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on....................."

2012 - another year, new beginnings.

If you ask any group of automobile owners to rate their driving skills, 80% will say:  "Above average."  We tend to have an exaggerated idea of our own skills levels, believing - erroneously - that we know more than we do; that we are better at something than we likely are.


"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.  The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".  In both cases, the perception is wrong and that clouds our ability to both perform and to improve. 

The worse we are at any specific skill set, the harder it is for us to evaluate our own competency at it.  By definition, 80% of the automobile drivers cannot be above average, but it is common for us to mistakenly see ourselves as more competent than we are (or for the few mega-competent, to see ourselves as less competent).  This isn't to say we are all incompetent and lack skill sets; rather it recognizes that we tend to often believe we are - particularly in relationship to other people - more adept and skillful than is the case.  

Doubtless this is true in the arts management profession (assuming for the moment it is a profession - but that's a topic for another blog) and we see ourselves as more skillful than we actually might be in a host of areas - from research and marketing, to advocacy and policy formulation, from program design and implementation to financial management, from interpersonal relationships to the essential skills of communication in all its forms - including listening and understanding.  In truth, the Dunning-Kruger effect suggests we are not nearly as good as what we do as we perceive ourselves to be.  And this false over-confidence likely impacts the level of our performance and the outcomes we achieve.  

Moreover, the "effect" may apply not only to us as individual managers, but it may apply to the whole of the nonprofit arts sector.  

Perhaps the New Year is a good time to think about these kinds of things.  How then does one deal with this "effect"?  

I would think the first step would be to take a long hard look at ourselves - both as individual managers and a 'sector".  Can we recognize and identify where we are subject to thinking we are more competent than we really are?  Can we admit it?  It is only surface mis-perception of our skill levels, or does it run deep into systemic self-deception?  Is it more applicable to certain strata of our leadership or is it widely pervasive?  Are certain areas of our management protocols such as to make us more susceptible to the "effect" than we might be in other areas?   

If we can dig deep enough within the dynamics of our organizational management framework, then the next step would be to consider how we might improve the skill sets where we are most vulnerable to self-exaggeration in terms of our competency.  And that, of course, leads to consideration of what kind of job we are doing in terms of providing all of our managers sophisticated and meaningful support in learning how to become a better manager and administrator (a subject of which I have previously indicated our field as seriously lacking).  In this sense, addressing the Dunning-Kruger effect, or any other identifiable phenomena that impacts our competitive capacity and ultimate success, is smart and intelligent professional development - not only deserving of attention, but demanding it.  IF we are indeed a profession - or want to become one - we need not only minimum standards of competency but both a higher bar and a comprehensive approach to developing our management skill sets to reach that higher bar.

Perhaps as you make important decisions in the beginning of the new year - decisions that will impact how well your organization fares this year - you might consider that you know less than you think - or in the case of you very rare highly skilled leaders - more than you think.  I suppose the danger is exactly what the Dunning-Kruger effect recognizes - the less skilled think they are more skilled; the highly skilled think they are less skilled.  Over confidence breeds poor decision making and less satisfactory results.  Under confidence likely produces much the same situation.  

Oh my.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit

Barry

Resolved

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on..................."

New Year's Resolutions:

Time once again to trot out the same resolutions we make every year:  get to the gym; exercise more, eat healthy; get organized; spend more time doing what we like; be a better person.  Lofty and admirable aspirations all.  Good luck.

On an ambitious but not unrealistic thread, here are some modest suggestions for New Year's resolutions the arts community as a whole early ought to make - directed principally at the funders and national arts organizations that have the capacity, resources and platforms to actually do something about these issues:

1.  Cultural Equity:  Address finally the disparity in the allocation of funding that gives short shift to the smaller, newer and multicultural organizations.  And with due respect to those of good will that recognize the challenge and want to address it - it really isn't about desired outcomes or long range objectives.  Equity is about fairness; it's about equality in application.  The simple fact is that the current systemic mechanisms we use to allocate funding simply aren't 'fair.'  They favor one class of organizations over all the rest and no amount of rationalization can justify the inherent 'inequity' in the reality.   Make it fair.

2.  Research:  We need a national consensus policy to guide our research efforts into the decade.  As good as our research is, and as capable as our researchers are - it is basically piecemeal.  We need an over-arching policy as to what we need to know, on what timeline and to what purpose.  And we need at least some modicum of cooperation so we can pursue research in some linear pattern.  Somebody please convene a national summit to deal with our currently all over the map research efforts.  At least create ways  researchers (can and will) talk to each other on some regular basis.

3.  Political Action Committees:  Every state arts advocacy organization should establish a state Political Action Committee this year.  This isn't rocket science.  It's all perfectly legal and easy to do - including, contrary to the naysayers - raising funds to support the effort (and it takes far, far less to be effective than you think).  The net result will be dramatically increased political clout,  a much needed sense of empowerment and belief that we can indeed control our own destinies, and a huge push in the momentum towards collaboration.  It will also likely to lead to better results for us.

4.  Economies of Scale:  Again somebody please look at the issue of how we can reduce our operating costs by cooperative ventures from a national perspective.  From accounting and payroll services, to marketing, to such mundane things as printing expenses - we are all paying more than we should because we do not leverage our numbers to cut costs and get discounts.  It is simply too hard for arts organizations on a local level to put together cooperatives that will accomplish these kinds of savings.  There has to be some help from at least the state level, and better on the federal level, that will create the framework so organizations can plug into it and easily enjoy the advantages of large scale buying power.  For example: There is no reason the arts sector shouldn't own it's own printing plants - strategically located around the country - that would produce all our stationery, brochures, fundraising flyers, posters, advertisements etc.  That would allow all of us access to high quality artwork and finished product at highly competitive prices and on an as good as (and maybe better) delivery schedule.  With off the shelf software and internet advances, and drop shipping widely available - there is no reason to continue to pay local high prices for quality printing.  We should start our own printing business.

5.  Local Arts Agency Funding Diversity:  We desperately need to convene our best minds to brainstorm ideas as to how we can diversify the funding streams of local and state arts agencies.  A new funding model for government funding is needed very soon if this branch of our funding infrastructure is to survive.  I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is one - but let's make it a national priority to find out.

6.  Shift in Arts Education Demands:  At the risk of offending some of those who have for so long fought the good fight to get curriculum based, sequential arts education - with universal standards and assessment - taught by qualified / certified teachers - for all students K-12 - we need to adjust our thinking to be more realistic.  The simple and unalterable fact is that the cost of one visual arts, one music, one dance and one drama teacher in every school is so enormous as to be prohibitively expensive.  It just cannot happen across all jurisdictions.  Let's resolve to identify smaller, reachable annual objectives that move us along the continuum, even if it's just steps in the right direction.

7.  Mentoring:  Here's one last resolution that would make an enormous difference, and though it would take a serious time commitment - it is within our power.  Each seasoned arts leader who has been in the field for more than ten years - resolve to find someone to mentor who has been in the field less than five years - and at least offer to do it for at least six months.  Maybe some national organization or funder would facilitate the creation of a website that would broker those looking for mentors with those willing to volunteer.

So please all you foundation people and you national organization leaders - think about resolving to address one or more of the above issues.

Happy New Year.  Let's hope it's a good one, the misinterpreters of the Mayan calendar notwithstanding.

Don't Quit.
Barry

Dealing with the Data

Good morning.

"And the beat goes on..................."

     

Some research that raises questions for our strategies:

I.  The gap between generational wealth widens:

According to the Pew Research Center, households headed by older adults have made dramatic gains in economic well-being relative to those headed by younger adults over the last 25 years.

"The typical household headed by adults over 65 had 47 times as much net wealth as one headed by adults under 35 -- $170,494 versus $3,662 (all figures expressed in 2010 dollars). Back in 1984, this ratio had been less lopsided, at ten-to-one. In absolute terms, the oldest households in 1984 had a median net wealth $108,936 higher than that of the youngest households. In 2009, the gap had widened to $166,832.

The median net worth of older and younger households moved in opposite directions between 1984 and 2009. Older households gained 42% in median net worth while net worth for younger households fell by 68%. These age-based divergences widened substantially with the housing market collapse of 2006, the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the ensuing jobless recovery. But this gap began appearing decades earlier, suggesting that it is linked to long-term demographic and social changes as much as it is to recent economic stagnation.

Housing has been the main driver of the household wealth gap. Compared with their counterparts in 1984, rising home equity has been the linchpin of the higher wealth of older households in 2009. Declining home equity has had the opposite effect on younger households."

This raises several questions:  

1) In terms of financial support, are older Americans then the best likely prime target for the foreseeable future?  Is the same true for audience development or are the two apples and oranges?

2) Though I don't think we can automatically conclude that younger cohorts will not be generous in their giving patterns nor that we should not cultivate them for both the short and long term, given their economic situation, how do we adjust our strategies?  

3) Is pricing (more than other considerations) more of an issue for younger households as they struggle economically ?  (and thus do we need to ramp up our thinking in terms of alternate delivery systems for our products)? 

In short, what precisely are the priorities of each generation in terms of our offerings?  Do we have sufficient data on different generational concerns - including different geographical and demographic differences with same set generational cohorts?  And does our marketing take these variables into consideration?

II.  This also from Pew - research on the precipitous decline in marriage:

"In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are. If current trends continue, the share of adults who are currently married will drop to below half within a few years. Other adult living arrangements-including cohabitation, single-person households and single parenthood-have all grown more prevalent in recent decades.

The Pew Research analysis also finds that the number of new marriages in the U.S. declined by 5% between 2009 and 2010, a sharp one-year drop that may or may not be related to the sour economy."

While we continue the inquiry into the motivation of why our audiences do or do not attend our events (including the intangibles of depth and breadth of experience etc.), are we ignoring the more basic issue of knowing more about who are audience really is?  Do we assume (perhaps erroneously) the most of the seats at our performances are occupied by "couples"? Is our marketing premised on that assumption?  What percentage of our audiences are singles - alone or in groups?  Is there any difference, quantifiable or otherwise, between the attendance / spending patterns of married couples v. co-habitators or other living arrangement couples or singles (recognizing that younger singles act socially in packs)?  Does our marketing take any of this into consideration?  Does the trend towards accessing art via technology reflect the growing singles market - as perhaps it is less appealing for singles to attend performances by themselves (and it would be interesting to know how attendance at movies relates to this issue)? Is the philanthropic giving of couples (irrespective of how defined) and singles vastly different?  

I suppose the problem with research is there is too much to study, too many variables to take into consideration, and (especially because our resources are limited) that it is very difficult to fit all the pieces into a coherent whole, but the base of all the research we do must ultimately start with building on our knowledge base of precisely who are audiences are, and the data that most directly impacts how we might expand that group.  Are the current audiences who we think they are?  

Shifts in marriage and generational income are but two of probably scores of markers that may impact the success of our strategies.  Within each of just those two threads, there are doubtless questions of differences in patterns based on ethnicity, geography, education level, gender and more.  What don't we know?

Wishing you all the happiest of holidays.

Don't Quit.

Barry

More on the Cultural Equity Discussion

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on........................."

Funding disproportionately in favor of Euro-Centric, Major Organizations?
The debate on cultural equity - or more appropriately - cultural inequity - ramped up this week with a GIA Blogathon on the issue (with a stellar group of contributors - but whom I feel often skirted the essence of the issue - i.e., the fact of inequality of support), and Arlene Goldbard's continuing series.

At the heart of the discussion is the legacy of both government and philanthropic support for Euro-centric, big budget cultural institutions at the expense of the array of multicultural and newer generational smaller organizations.  See Fusing Arts Culture and Social Change - High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy authored by Holly Sidfor - the excellent report that was the genesis of the current discussion..  To no one's surprise the statistics bear out that proportionately most funding goes to the larger, well established cultural institutions across the country - the operas, museums, symphonies, ballet and theater companies.

To be sure, there has been significant progress over the past two decades in moving more towards, if not true cultural equity - then at least something a little more balanced.  Many would decry it's been far too little and too slow and I would be hard pressed to disagree.  And because politics is about bloc constituency appeasement, there has arguably been more progress in equitable governmental funding support because it is more (though surely not truly) transparent, and because ultimately equity means votes.  I suspect the arts would have fared even better in achieving real equitable governmental support were we more organized politically and more willing to demand that result.  Private philanthropic support too can claim credit for inventive and impactful programs moving towards more  balance, but it cannot be denied that foundational decision making is hardly transparent, nor that the end result is clearly more often inequitable than equitable.

But the answer to the question:  "Is diversity funding a core value to the arts philanthropic community" - despite some soul searching and some notable attempts, the sorry answer born out by the reality is: "No it is not." At best we are paying lip service to what is a lofty and politically correct aspiration, but which is really - thus far - not a great deal more.  The money - the real money - flows where it has always flowed - to the biggest Euro centric arts organizations - especially money from the foundation world.  By any standard or criteria it isn't going to the vast - and huge - multicultural, experimental, newer arts organizations.  Self-serving patting ourselves on the back for our accomplishments in moving towards real cultural equity would seem premature.

Arlene posits three principal areas of causation for the ongoing continuation of that legacy: entrenched privilege; encoded prejudice; and risk aversion.  In essence, all three are intertwined in what was once called "the good old boy network" - or to use more contemporary parlance - a form of tribalism.  It isn't helpful to characterize this in any pejorative sense as evil or conspiratorial - rather it is really just the natural tendency to support one's "own" - the familiar, that with which one grew up.  And that legacy of how things are done favors what it has always favor - the larger Euro-centric cultural institutions.  The bottom line is this: we are not likely to change private decision-making as the same governs equity considerations until we change the culture of leadership currently (still) existent in the Board rooms where the decisions about who gets how much are made.  


This is a Board of Directors issue.  I believe virtually all the capable and qualified foundation arts program officers know fully well that they manage programs are that are not really equitable (with some obvious exceptions here and there), and that these people know how to, and would very much like to, move towards that more equitable  balance, but ultimately the final decisions rest not with them, but with Board members.  And the direct network crossover by and between those Board members with those very major cultural organizations that disproportionately benefit the most is the one thing that is very transparent.  It is still "who you know".  


Given that the composition of these Boards is not likely to convert to a truly demographic representation of the populace or the field in any overnight epiphany, how then do we move to address cultural inequity in as meaningful and rapid a way as possible?  


First, I think we must acknowledge and accept the reality of how public and philanthropic dollars are meted out, by whom, and on what basis.  Let's call a spade a spade.  We have a problem here Houston.  Given that reality, we can continue to move forward (albeit painfully slowly) by a relentless pushing from both inside the agencies and foundations, and by exerting outside pressure, to adopt more protocols and programs that move towards equity.  The moral imperative of Spike Lee's reminder long ago to entreat decision makers to "do the right thing" is not altogether an ineffective strategy.

Similarly we can ratchet up the cry for diversity in the Boardrooms and not just token representation either. Here a public spotlight may be out best weapon - shined ceaselessly on the organizations, their procedures and track records and most of all on the individual human Board members.  Times have changed and Board members - no matter how high up in the pantheon of the elite - are nonetheless sensitive to public opinion and want to avoid even the appearance of favoritism or inequity.  So let's point that out to them so they can address the issue.

But all of that is a kind of political approach to what is really a systemic challenge to change the cultural "mindset" of philanthropic funding allocation itself, and THAT will be harder to change and take longer than we will want -- for the current mindset is endemic to the whole modern era philanthropic apparatus that has had time to become entrenched and codified.  Sometimes you can achieve great results by insistently demanding change happen, but too often that change is merely symbolic and confined to the surface.  No, I don't think pressure on Boards in and of itself is the ultimate solution - though it is an arrow in our quiver.

So we have to continue to develop other mechanisms that address the systemic nature of the mindset, and that approach is more arduous and difficult.

I came across the site for Grantmakers for Effective Organization (thanks to Diem Jones for the link) and two recent reports on their site caught my eye as potentially effective mechanisms for moving the philanthropic mindset closer to one that is amenable to advancing cultural equity (though slowly folks).

The first has to do with making 'empathy' a core driver of grant making activity.  The report offers five suggestions for more effective grant making:

1. Make it about others, not about you.
High-empathy grantmakers look at their organizations’ grantmaking strategies, policies, processes and re- quirements through the eyes of grantees and others, and they ask questions about whether their organization is doing the right thing by its grantees and applicants for support.
High-empathy grantmakers also have an intuitive understanding of how important it is for others to feel own- ership of their work and priorities. As a result, they are conscious of ensuring that they remain behind the scenes, and that nonprofits and community members are out front in shaping and taking credit for their work.
2. Get out of the office.
Nothing beats a face-to-face visit to the very places where a grantmaker’s stakeholders live their lives and do their work. This allows grantmakers to develop and deepen relationships and to see the world through the eyes of the people who are the focus of their work.
Getting out of the office doesn’t mean simply engaging in exploratory site visits, however. Often, it means working hand in hand with others in the community — recognizing that your mandate does not begin and end at the front doors of your offices. Other ways for grantmakers to “get out there” include volunteering and serving on nonprofit boards, in local government and in civic organizations.
3. Bring the outside in.
High-empathy foundations actively try to remove the barriers that can contribute to their isolation and ano- nymity in their communities. One way they start is by bringing into the organization the kind of people it serves — including nonprofit executive directors and staff, as well as representatives of the communities that are the focus of its grantmaking.
Beyond hiring “customers,” high-empathy foundations also take other steps to ensure that they are bringing the outside in. These include adding nonprofit and community representatives to the board; adding comment pages and other interactive elements to the foundation website; inviting grantees to share stories with the staff and board in formal and informal settings; and even populating the walls of the office with stories, photos and artwork that reflect what’s happening in the community and among the people they serve.
4. Invest in what it takes.
In many ways, the shift to high-empathy grantmaking can happen through relatively simple steps that foun- dations and their people can take to connect in more authentic ways with others. At the same time, however, grantmakers should recognize that creating widespread empathy in their organizations may require stepped-up investments in operations. Some grantmakers, for example, have decided to add staff as a way to foster strong- er connections with grantees.

Beyond staffing, grantmakers also might find they have to invest in new processes, new systems and new strat- egies to nurture deeper connections between their people and the communities they serve. One caveat as grantmakers consider what they can do to forge deeper relationships with grantees and others: Always be con- scious of your impact on the capacity of grantees to stay focused on their work. Stronger connections and openness to listening and hearing grantee concerns are almost always welcome; interfering in grantees’ day-to- day operations is not.
5. Lead from the top.
One of the most essential characteristics of high-empathy organizations is a leadership team that walks the talk and demonstrates high-empathy behaviors in its everyday work.
To change the culture and overarching strategies of the organization, leaders must embrace widespread empathy as the pathway to better results for the organization and its stakeholders. That means getting everybody to focus on what’s really going to make a difference for the people and the organizations that are central to the mission of the organization.
Leaders also should review what the foundation does (and how it can do more) to promote work practices that encourage and sustain empathy, from deep listening and reflection to looking at the world through the eyes of grantees and others. 


The second report dealt with Catalyzing Networks for Social Change.  As the introduction stated: "Philanthropists are at a new crossroads of increasing fragmentation and interdependence. On the one hand, we’re living in a world where perspectives, practices and action are increasingly fragmented as people and organizations become more specialized in their interests and siloed in their actions. On the other hand, we’re living in a world that is becoming more and more interdependent as ideas, money, things and people move across boundaries of all kinds. Simply stated, philanthropists are operating in a rapidly changing, networked world where the pathways to effecting social change are far from straightforward.  There is a growing imperative for funders to combine longstanding instincts toward independent initiative and action with an emerging network mindset and toolkit that helps them see their work as part of larger, more diverse and more powerful efforts."  

Here is a quick overview of the traditional v. network approach to funding:

Traditional and network approaches to grantmaker Challenges

Challenge	Traditional approach	network approach
Build community assets	Administer social services	Weave social ties
Develop better designs and decisions	Gather input from people you know	Access new and diverse perspectives
Spread what works	Disseminate white papers	Openly build and share knowledge
Mobilize action	Organize tightly coordinated campaigns	Create infrastructure for widespread engagement
Overcome fragmentation	Bring players and programs under a single umbrella	Coordinate resources and action

I was particularly caught by the section on working with a network mindset and how that might be an approach we can use as a step in altering the culture of arts philanthropic decision making.  The report describes that premise:  "Working with a network mindset means operating with an awareness of the webs of relationships you are embedded in.  It also means cultivating these relationships to achieve the impact you care about.   Working with a network mindset also means finding where the conversations are happening and taking part in them — exercising leadership through active participation.  Of course, working transparently and sharing leadership isn’t always easy. Basic grantmaking structures and mechanics, such as siloed program areas and static application requirements, inhibit working this way. In addition, there are many open questions about how working with a network mindset will mesh with current ways of doing business."


Implementing either or both these approaches (or others that may be developed that promise the same improvements) will not be easy, will take time and effort, and may not even net us the full result we seek.  But we need to take a holistic approach to dealing with the challenge.  Our whole future of relevance is likely at stake.  


Opening up the cultural philanthropic decision making so as to facilitate movement towards equity will require opening up to more and newer community relationships and involvement, and to greater transparency in the whole decision making process.  That won't be any easy conversion for most entrenched Boards that are use to going it their own way, nor will imposing empathy, but step by step by step we can apply pressure and instigate and embed new approaches that favor more openness and THAT needs to be part of the approach.


Have a good week.


Don't Quit
Barry