Change Management, Delivery Systems and Transparency

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

Change.  It's in the air, it's all around us, it's an unavoidable mandate in today's climate.  We hear advice everywhere that individuals, companies, organizations, must be adaptive, flexible, nimble in their approach to what they do.   Training and education is lifelong.  Companies will morph from one incarnation to another.The future will see careers increasingly involve any number of moves.  Nothing is permanent, little can be counted on.  The whole world must be entrepreneurial.

Globalization and, in particular, the speed of technological innovation has posed a dizzying array of new challenges - not just for us, but for every sector.  The rise of mobile adaptability has impacted everything, and revolutionized how people interact with the world.  Knowledge itself has grown exponentially.  Business survival, let alone competitive advantage, belongs to those that adapt and can successfully change.  And the future very likely holds even greater change that we can even imagine today.

All these changes have made longer term strategic planning an anachronism.  It's hard to plan for a future that may look nothing like today.  Yet we can hardly afford to just be reactive to all the change around us.  At least not entirely.

The only constant then is change, and we are advised to be prepared.

But are we?  To what extent have we made real progress in understanding the dynamics of change as it affects us?  What models have we developed that might help us to manage change in our universe? What training do we offer that enables our leadership to deal with change?  What have we learned from other fields?  How do we go about change?  Are we changing, and are we changing fast enough?

Note:  There is no shortage of change models and step processes to guide one.  The key is to adapt the advice to our situations.

Change management theory - the attempt to develop structured approaches to ensure smooth and successful change transition is at least 30 years old.  The basic tenets aren't rocket science, but fully implementing change is not easy.

First, of course, there must be recognition of the necessity for evolving change within an organization. 

Second, there needs to be some basic understanding of what needs to be changed, and why. This involves understanding how the need for change serves mission, goals and objectives.   It ought to be specific.

Third, there needs to be internal / external communication as to the need for change and what change will entail.  Buy-in is critical. 

Fourth, comes the development of specific strategies for how to change specific things. This stage is definitionally experimental, and there is a risk of error in judgment.

Fifth, there needs to be training and preparation not only of the people who will execute the change, but those whom the change will impact. 

Sixth, there needs to be some measurement of change as it unfolds, and in terms of its success as measured against the mission, goals and objectives.

As change is, by its nature, fraught with risk, none of these steps are simple.  The problem with effectively managing change as a constant, is that there are no one-size-fits-all models we can use. Change is particular to the the situation and the organization.  Compounding the challenge is the reality that the changes we need or want to make are dictated, in part, by the wider changes over which we have little to no control.

People and organizations are likely "change" averse.  Change can be a frightening prospect.  And the bigger the change the more difficult to implement.  How then do we move to the new normal where change is not an occasional phenomenon, but rather a "way" of doing things.  There needs to be a culture which not only embraces change, but celebrates it as an embedded process; not a 'once-in-awhile' thing, but an "always" thing.  Imagine innovation as not a destination, but a journey. Imagine change as a process not as a tool, but as part of the mission itself.

And just how close to that are we?  What do we have to do to get there?  What lessons can be learned - and shared (despite change as a concept being customizable to varying and differing sets of circumstances?)

Let's take the 'delivery' system model as an example.  For us in the arts, one of the most obvious areas that demands we make changes is in how we deliver 'art'.  For a variety of reasons - changing patterns of people's lifestyles, the rise of technology enabled access, altering priorities for leisure time allocation of ever scarce resources, the economic reality of a dwindling middle class - the past model of how art is delivered and accessed has already changed; changes that come from outside our sphere rather than from within.   One might argue that we don't even yet full understand exactly how that change affects us, or the dynamics of how it operates; that those outside changes came in spite of us, while we were clinging to the status quo.

And while there is some activity on our part in trying to better improve how we deliver art so as to escape the bounds of being tied to an antiquated and dysfunctional delivery system, (for example, as in our greater exploitation of technology), what are our arts organizations that are still married to the bricks and mortar four wall approach to do?  What kind of change is possible?  That is a fundamental question.  Indeed, change in our delivery system may be the most important change we need to make.

Change need not always be direct.  Changing the four wall delivery system for say, a museum, might involve ways to curate and exhibit outside a bricks and mortar facility, but it also might involve methods to alter the perception of the museum's public as to the facility itself.  Change is, if anything, a multi dimensional phenomenon.  And again, therein lies the challenge.

Then too, there are differing degrees of change.  Some change is hardly change at all - but more of a "tweaking" of something - a cosmetic dressing up of what is old and tired.  That may or may not actually be 'change'.  Other change is systemic and fundamental and goes to the core of something.  Change will be an entirely different thing for different groups and individual organizations, at different times.  You hear lots of people say that they are committed to change, but what does that mean?  Does it mean more than that they understand there are things that aren't working, and they want to find something that does work?  Is it more than verbiage?  What specifically have they done to make changes?

Because change may well be an imperative, because real change likely impacts every facet and every constituent group of an organization, because change to be effective demands it permeate the fabric of the organization, and because change is risky, I would argue that the whole process - from the inception of the recognition of its necessity to the final implementation of concrete actions - benefits from a wide open transparency.  Transparency increases buy-in, opens the door to wider ideas, minimizes some of the risk, and pays dividends in according respect to the various publics of an organization.

If change is thought to be wholly an internal directive, something exclusively from an executive level decision making process, then it seems to me it is somewhat doomed from the outset.  The process itself demands involvement of every segment that may be impacted by the change.  Without that wide open invitation for everyone - staff, boards, supporters, patrons, volunteers, stakeholders, funders, the community - to be part of the whole of the change process, success may be axiomatically more difficult to attain.  And I believe the timeline window for us to "change" is narrowing day by day.

Change is happening all around us.  Change that will dictate circumstances to us of how we will be able to operate and function - whether we like it or not, accept it or not.  We know we need to make  changes, and at many points we are doing so. But at many other points we are not.  We need to consider the dynamics of change in a bigger sense, and specifically how we can get a handle on it for the benefit of the whole sector.  We need to develop some tools that can be helpful to all arts organizations, and share those tools with those that are struggling with how to make changes and deciding on which changes are right for them.  Increasingly, success seems to belong to the bold.

All change is somewhat of a guessing game, and like in other sectors, many of us will guess wrong.  Whatever we can do to increase the chances we can guess right and make meaningful change at minimal risk ought to be a priority.  Two things I would argue for is to first talk about change at every opportunity, and second, make transparency in the process the highest priority.  Change is not a solitary pursuit.

One last point:  As you approach the change process, remember that you have a right to change your mind.  It is a process.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit.
Barry

The Want vs. Need Discussion / Thoughts on Effective Altruism and Censorship

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

An interesting discussion going on in the arts blogosphere over perceiving what the audience / public want v. what they need -  first broached by Nina Simon, with follow ups from Diane Ragsdale, Doug Borwick, and entries with related topics by Ian David Moss, Howard Sherman and Clay Lord.

There really isn't much to add to Nina's, Diane's and Doug's thinking, plus the comments of a score of people on the topic on their blogs.  And I agree with most of which each of them offers.  I personally feel even stronger that when we talk about what the audience or our public "needs" (talking to them as opposed to amongst ourselves) we are on shaky ground; that it is seen as presumptive, arrogant and patronizing.  Moreover, selling what we offer as satisfying what we in our infinite wisdom conclude people need is a failed strategy if, for no other reason, it is so easy to equate what we think they need, with what we want.    If we want to argue that society "needs" the arts, then I agree wholeheartedly and think we can make a convincing case for that proposition.  But when we make a value judgement as to what individuals in our siloed spheres need, we assume perhaps too much and risk alienating those people if we direct our conclusions towards them.  And, of course, we might very well just get it wrong.

I think Artists clearly have the absolute right to create as they see fit, based on whatever assumptions they may wish to make.  If they create in response to what they identify as a need, or a want or anything else - then that is their right; they may choose to make those assumptions based on what motivations work for them.  And artists who wish to create with no consideration whatsoever as to need, or want - also have the unbridled right to do so.

Arts organizations that wish to identify what they think is a need and respond to it also have the right to do so.  But it seems to me anyway very shaky ground, fraught with risk.  Organizations that try to identify 'wants' --  whether to appeal to a broader base or for whatever other reason, have a right to do so too, though it seems they must be willing to brave the criticisms and attacks that to do so panders to their constituents and somehow compromises their artistic integrity, if not their core missions.  One camp in our field urges organizations to address the concerns, needs and wants of their communities; another decries that approach as basically "selling out".   I leave it for others to sort it out.

What people "need" is highly subjective, while what they "want" may arguably be more possible to determine.  The problem is hardly mitigated by substituting "value" for "need", for again, it is difficult to ascertain what people value as distinguished from what they want - and why.

Ian's piece on Createquity is tangentially related to this discussion.  He talks about the growing idea of "effective altruism" - a concept purporting to embed ethical and moral overtones in its quest to make philanthropic giving pass the bar of someone's definition of being effective:

"It means taking the time to analyze how to do the most amount of good possible with the resources available" 

EA argues that:

"Those causes that can save or improve the most lives must take first priority."

Is philanthropy then just a numbers game?  That approach, despite the argument that arriving at how to best accomplish the objective of the most good for the most people may be factually discernible, is really but another way of saying "we" (in this case the Effective Altruists) can and do know best what the (greatest) need is.   Presumptive, arrogant and patronizing - at least as their conclusions ought to dictate what everyone thinks.

And if this is all reduced to some formula, would it be reliable?  If the only criteria is to save or improve the greatest number of lives, how do you know that arts in the schools might not yield us one student whose life was so changed by that intersection that he/she would grow up to be the artist / scientist that cured cancer.  A short term numbers game seems myopic at best.

I was in the Southeast Asian Tsunami of the last decade.  250,000 people died in that natural disaster, in part because very few understood what to do in the case of a Tsunami, and there was no effective warning system in place.  Arguably, addressing that need would save more lives than some other EA priority focus. Is it relevant to factor in the odds of something happening or not happening?   Or if you want to drill deeper, the unavoidable fact is that all the good you do to save or improve some lives (eradicating disease, providing safe drinking water) pales when faced with the inalterable fact that if you don't do something to stem the tide of overpopulation, than for every one you save, a hundred are born to take their place.  Overpopulation trumps every effort to get any kind of handle on the problems facing those most in dire straits.  So there is arguably no other cause that matters.  Or one might argue that to really change and improve the most lives, you have to change the political situations around the globe that disenfranchise people and allow corruption to keep the many from the benefits their governments ought to provide.  Then the only "acceptable" place to put your money would be in ways to change those political situations.  The point is that despite the claims of the EAs, determining where the biggest need is, isn't necessarily so easy.

And though EA's don't deny there is a self-benefit to doing good work (as they define it), to suggest that is not one of their primary motivating factors is disingenuous.  That they feel they are on the "right" path to doing good  (and presumptively the rest of us are not), is sanctimonious and self-serving.  It is precisely their feeling of implied superiority to those who give to causes that might not necessarily yield the most good for the most people that EAs embrace, that is offensive.  Who died and left you guys the Kings to tell the rest of us that the good we seek to do isn't enough?; that doing good is only a numbers game - an ultimately unprovable one at that.

You can't tell people that doing good only matters if it fits someone else's self defined notion of what people "need". And that is exactly what the EAs seem to me to be doing.   If you want moral certitude, any number of orthodox religions will gladly give you guidance.  There is simply no real way to determine what, in the long run, will actually change and benefit the most people.  Of course, if the EAs reject the long run in favor of the moment, then I'm afraid their whole posture is just silly. That said, I think the E/A concept might (emphasizing 'might') be productive (as a concept) within any discussion of how we might allocate our scarce resources in the arts.  Productive, not dispositive.

Finally, Howard Sherman wrote a compelling blog about a high school principal that cancelled a production of the play Rent by his students in what (from the tone of articles and comments about the incident) appeared to be a pandering to those (not in the student body apparently, but in the community) who might find the subject matter troubling or offensive or inappropriate.  On its face, the principal likely had the "right" to his decision, and his posture seemed rational and even reasonable.  Yet his action was unquestionably, despite denials, censorship.  In a letter purporting to explain his rationale, he cited the need for a "safe" environment for his students, though it would seem that perhaps his "need" for a safe environment was more political.  Nowhere did he mention creating a "safe academic" environment - you know, where the free flow of ideas, even those that might be troubling, are the goal of education and academia.  It seems he had little confidence in those seniors principally involved (though the play was not exclusively a senior production) in the production to handle the challenge of dealing - without supervision and prolonged preparation - a play that dealt with real world issues.   And that strikes me as odd given that in just a few months time those seniors will be enrolled in colleges, able to vote, fight in our military and assume the mantle of young adulthood.  One wonders just what kind of magic morphing the students do in those few months to be able to handle the provocative issues - issues which I would bet they are already very familiar with anyway.

But the issue here is, once again, someone determining what need exists - in this case the need for the students and the community to be shielded and protected from possibly controversial subject matter.  That the principal may have had the right in this case (we tend to ratify decisions theoretically made to protect the innocence of youth) to his decision, doesn't change the notion that when making the subjective decision about who needs what and why - there is an element of presumption that carries with it the risk of backlash (in this case a student body, parental bloc and community that is appalled by the decision.) Moreover, one group's needs may run counter to the needs of another group.  And, of course, that you may simply be wrong.

Finally, Clay Lord in his New Beans post on the high school Rent brouhaha, opines (in speaking about the Principal's decision to cancel the performance until (perhaps) "it can (be) produced later with a lot of context-making activities and conversations to help people understand why it’s being produced") :

"I don’t, for example, find it censorious – I find it, given the climate, rather liberal.  In a town like Trumbull, I’d imagine that a high school musical Rent without appropriate context would serve a much smaller and more incendiary purpose than it might if placed in a larger conversation, where more people could have more nuanced conversations about what it means, why it’s relevant, and where the artistic desire to push outside of comfort aligns with the community’s desire to adhere to certain values."

With all due respect to Clay, (and his piece above is an excellent consideration of the 'other side' of issues and should be read in its entirety), I completely disagree.  The principal's action was definitionally censorship:

"an examination in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"

whether or not there may be an argument justifying the censorship.  Art is sometimes (often) considered objectionable by someone, somewhere.  While working more closely with, and within, our communities is both a laudable goal and a practical survival necessity for us, I also believe we must resist attempts to marginalize artists and their work by buying into the notion that someone else's perceived need with respect to a work of art, or its presentation, especially because of an objection, is something that governs, if not trumps, the art itself and the artist's need to have the freedom to create (and yes, even offend).  It isn't our job to necessarily provide even "nuanced conversations about what something means or why it's relevant."  We can do that, and sometimes we should do that, but it can be a dangerous precedent and we ought to be championing the right of the artist and the art in the balance.

According to the articles on this matter, the principal denied knowing Rent would be the production, but there is ample evidence that there were numerous casting calls from the beginning of the term and that production has proceeded to auditions.  If he didn't know, he ought to have known.  Though I may be wrong, it seems likely his reservations were occasioned by someone or some small group who found it objectionable.  I certainly agree that preparation with everyone before the mounting of the play would have been helpful (and the articles make it clear that this was a Student version of the play and that there was a wealth of materials to help with the presentation of a Student version), but I think it dangerous that we adopt the position that if anyone objects to a work of art, we are always obligated to bend to their will and explain it all to them so they will be ok with it - especially as in this instance, where there was substantial opposition to the kind of knee jerk reaction that this principal seems to have engaged in.  Needs based on the tyranny of the minority.

I am assuming attendance at the presentation of Rent in the high school situation was not mandatory, and anyone who thought they might be offended or find it objectionable could have simply chosen not to attend.  That is always the choice with art.  You don't have to engage with it.  This play's cancellation was due to someone identifying and satisfying their own need rather than whatever the need was of the group they purported to 'need' protection.  And very likely not at all what the students nor the community really wanted - but rather playing to the needs and wants of a much smaller niche.

In the end there are lots of "needs" out there.  And it is virtually always a subjective exercise to identify them.  We ought to try to understand what those needs may be.  Some may be arguably more pressing than others, but who gets to decide?  Who speaks for whom, and when?

And, of course, there is a vast range of wants out there too - even if, as Steve Jobs said, sometimes people just don't know what they want.

As Diane suggested, what WE need to do is to figure out why we are not connecting with greater numbers of people.  We all want to do that.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry

Where is the Arts "Neiman Marcus" Christmas Catalog

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

Thanksgiving is over.  Black Friday is over.  Now the Christmas madness starts in earnest.  Every year high end retailer Neiman Marcus publishes their Christmas Catalog - which includes fantasy gifts (their designation, not mine) - over the top extravagant indulgences that in a rational world would embarrass even the super rich.  But with the wealthy getting wealthier all across the planet, they have to have to spend their money on something - preferably something that will set them apart (if only in their own minds) that they are indeed "special."

Retailers are on the bandwagon that customers want "experiences", so this year's fantasy items include a couple of "experiences" (again their designation) - including an overnight stay in a Glass House owned by architect and art patron Philip Johnson.  A veritable "steal" at $30,000 (and all of the proceeds go to the National Trust for Historic Preservation).  There is also a $20,000 Jeff Koons art piece (one of a multiple run).  Another "experience" involves your purchase of a 25 carat diamond (I guess the bling itself simply isn't enough to satisfy the "experience", so according to the N/M Catalog:

"This once-in-a-lifetime adventure starts with a trip to the De Beers headquarters in London. Once there, you'll receive your exceptional diamond in its rough and uncut form, name your diamond, learn about the unique inscription it will receive, and meet the master craftsman who will hand-cut and polish it to perfection. 

A private tour of The Crown Jewels and dinner with De Beers CEO Philippe Mellier and Forevermark CEO Stephen Lussier in the Tower of London follow. Your journey continues on a vessel off Namibia's coast, where your diamond was discovered deep within the ocean floor. You'll then explore rough-diamond sorting houses and a children's community project, where the local population benefits from Forevermark's responsible sourcing of diamonds.

Upon returning to the United States, you'll meet with New York jewelry designer Maria Canale to design the ring that will exhibit your exceptional diamond.

This "experience" will set you back a cool $1,850,000 (with $10,000 going to The Heart of N/M Foundation).  I don't own any diamonds, so I can't really speak to the potential transformative nature that dinner with the CEO of De Beers might offer me.

I don't fault Neiman Marcus for ballyhooing what amounts to a kind of shameful excess given the plight of hundreds of millions of people around the world. This really isn't about the featured items for sale anyway.  This is about marketing.  I wonder how many of these big ticket items over the years go unsold.  This is about promoting the Neiman Marcus brand as high end, and this catalog has been tremendously successful in doing just that over the years.  It makes the news, gets television exposure, people talk about it (some people anyway), and it fits nicely with positioning N/M as a high end retailer.  Kudos to them for what (at least once) was a new, creative marketing approach.

I wonder though why real arts experiences aren't featured.  How about one of our major choreographers will name a new piece after a purchaser, and that lucky buyer will get to see the piece unfold from conception, to rehearsal, to debut performance - with lots of perks of involvement along the way.  One million dollars.  Or how about one of our conductors will take you step by step through the visioning and end performance of a new work (and perhaps even let you take a turn at conducting one of the final rehearsals).  One million dollars.  Or one of our museums will offer you and 50 of your best friends a sit down dinner and private curated tour of a big exhibition.  One million dollars.  Those would all be enviable experiences.

Or how about this ego feeder: for a measly one million dollars you can take "selfles" of you with major artists in a variety of our disciplines - composers, conductors, musicians, visual artists, poets, writers, film makers, playwrights.  Then you can post them on a social network to amaze your friends.

I'd like to see "experiences" like those in the N/M Christmas Catalog.

Or better yet, I would like to see the Arts have their own Christmas Catalog with some fantasy gift offerings like the above, but with maybe a hundred pages of real art and art performances from artists and arts organizations from across the country.  Real experiences:  From involvement with undiscovered rising dance companies to experimental theater groups; from innovative young artists pushing the boundaries in the social justice field, to the full diversity of new poets; from hip hop artists to classical musicians. Artists that could feed your mind and soul about how they create - sharing with you some of the process. There are doubtless a thousand times more exceptional experiences we could offer than even the thickest catalog could do justice to.

And even if (as I suspect with the N/M Catalog) many, if not all, these fantasy offerings went unsold, it would still garner us some much needed media hype, public buzz and maybe even honest interest in all the art that is out there.  Promote our brand, giving some inkling of the kind of experiences we offer.  I gotta think a lot of the experiences (with artist interfaces) that we might offer would find buyers.  Maybe lots of buyers.

I envision a Whole Earth Catalog (too young to remember it - Google it) of Arts Experiences going on every day in America.  Changing all the time, and changing the world as they unfold.

A different kind of bling.

Have a great week.

Don't Quit
Barry