Job Satisfaction and Happiness Working in the Arts

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

Countless stories have run about how people love to work at Google (or Apple or Twitter or any one of a score of high tech companies, large and small).  Casual work places with play areas and foosball, perks ranging from free lunches and cappuccinos, to subsidized transportation, and of course, the promise of bonuses and stock options that can make one extremely wealthy, all lure those with dreams of starting their own Facebooks or whatever and seemingly attract the best and brightest.  If the stories are to be believed, the challenges of working at these companies approaches the zenith of jobs in the world.  And I have no doubt most people at these places are indeed satisfied with their jobs and happy in their workplaces.  And too, success very likely makes the working environment more satisfying.

But I doubt it's the "fun" atmosphere that makes for the satisfaction.  I suspect there are three principal attractions that swell the ranks of applicants:
1.  Money.  It would be a mistake to think that getting rich doesn't play into the equation.  While most Google employees will never actually become multi millionaires or billionaires, the hope and promise of moving on to that level of success plays a role.  And even if not, compensation packages at these companies are very attractive and certainly outpace what we can generally offer in the arts.
2.  The challenge of being part of something "big" - something transformative and part of the move to the future is I think a big component of why people gravitate to these companies.
3.  The chance to be a part of a first class team of really bright, accomplished and driven people is an attractive incentive on a number of levels - including the opportunity to develop one's own skills and talents and for what that might mean to career advancement.

What about the arts?  Are our people satisfied and happy in their jobs?

A recent report on the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government:  An Index score measuring the overall performance of agencies and agency subcomponents related to employee satisfaction and commitment ranks both the National Endowments of the Humanities (#2) and the Arts (#16) in the Top 20.

The much higher ranking on virtually all the criteria of the Humanities agency over the Arts Endowment is, I suspect, partly a factor of: 1)  the Arts Agency being under more public (and often negative) media and political scrutiny and pressure.  We are much more of a target than the Humanities community, and 2) the frustration felt by many at the Arts Endowment resulting from what they know they could do with all the challenges they face, and having to do with the limited resources (constantly under attack) they have available to try to address those challenges.  Still, the difference between the two agencies' ranking is splitting hairs.  Of the thousands of government agencies, working at either Endowment provides a remarkable level of satisfaction.

This is not surprising.   While it would be interesting and valuable were there a definitive national survey of how people who work at arts organizations across the country felt about working in the field and at the specific organizations, I suspect most people who work in our field do so because of a passion and commitment to what we are all, individually and collectively, trying to accomplish.  And that gives them a high level of job satisfaction.  But I also suspect such a national poll might also show varying levels of dissatisfaction in their working environment; in the chances for advancement, opportunities for development, learning and decision making, leadership and the availability of the tools necessary to do the job.  I would also suspect some differences in satisfaction and happiness between generations, and depending on the the size and even geographical location of individual organizations.

Besides the obvious attraction of the kind of work we do in the arts, what are the other components of what makes people satisfied and happy or dissatisfied and unhappy in their jobs?

Unlike Silicon Valley, we don't offer great financial reward for the majority of those working in our field.  Indeed, in many instances (particularly at the middle and lower rungs of the managerial field) our financial compensation and benefits packages are barely competitive.  So that isn't likely either the lure to become part of the arts workforce or the reason we retain people.

But we do compete, I think, in offering people the chance to be part of something "big" - something transformative and important - different from the high tech cutting edge of the newest in technology, but something perhaps even more satisfying on a different level.

What about the chance to work as part of a team of really skilled, talented, bright people - a place where you are constantly challenged to be your best, to improve yourself and to grow and flourish within that kind of atmosphere?  Is that part of our attraction?  Is it part of our reality?  I think the answer is yes and no.

Yes, there is no shortage of intelligent, idea people in our field; people with whom it is stimulating to be around and to work with, and learn from; people with sharp minds, who constantly teach while they learn.  They are everywhere in our field - at big and small, old and new organizations.  But to suggest everyone in our field so qualifies is, I think, a mistaken conceit.  But no, not everyone is an 'A' lister. The fact is there is deadwood in our organizations (and doubtless in the high tech field too).   That's just reality.

In an interesting article in the Harvard Business Review by Patty McCord, the former Chief Talent Officer at Netflix, she offers two conversations she had with early employees to illustrate the underlying principles the company employed to attract the best talent possible:

"One day I was talking with one of our best engineers, an employee I’ll call John. Before the layoffs, he’d managed three engineers, but now he was a one-man department working very long hours. I told John I hoped to hire some help for him soon. His response surprised me. “There’s no rush—I’m happier now,” he said. It turned out that the engineers we’d laid off weren’t spectacular—they were merely adequate. John realized that he’d spent too much time riding herd on them and fixing their mistakes. “I’ve learned that I’d rather work by myself than with subpar performers,” he said. His words echo in my mind whenever I describe the most basic element of Netflix’s talent philosophy: The best thing you can do for employees—a perk better than foosball or free sushi—is hire only “A” players to work alongside them. Excellent colleagues trump everything else (italics and emphasis mine).

The second conversation took place in 2002, a few months after our IPO. Laura, our bookkeeper, was bright, hardworking, and creative. She’d been very important to our early growth, having devised a system for accurately tracking movie rentals so that we could pay the correct royalties. But now, as a public company, we needed CPAs and other fully credentialed, deeply experienced accounting professionals—and Laura had only an associate’s degree from a community college. Despite her work ethic, her track record, and the fact that we all really liked her, her skills were no longer adequate. Some of us talked about jury-rigging a new role for her, but we decided that wouldn’t be right.

So I sat down with Laura and explained the situation—and said that in light of her spectacular service, we would give her a spectacular severance package. I’d braced myself for tears or histrionics, but Laura reacted well: She was sad to be leaving but recognized that the generous severance would let her regroup, retrain, and find a new career path. This incident helped us create the other vital element of our talent management philosophy: If we wanted only “A” players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been. Out of fairness to such people—and, frankly, to help us overcome our discomfort with discharging them—we learned to offer rich severance packages.

I tend to agree that one of the most important factors in making for a fulfilling and happy workplace is working along side of people whom you know will bring out the best in you; who will help you become better at what you do, and who challenge you to bring your 'A' game every day.  Bright, intelligent, idea people who relish challenges and strive for solutions help create a culture in a workplace that is simply intoxicating; people who carry their own weight and are part of finding solutions, not adding to the problems.  A whole team of really good people creates its own dynamic.

But identifying and attracting those people is not always a simple and easy prospect.  Every organization that hires a new person believes that person will indeed be a perfect fit, and a valuable addition to their ranks.  Hiring someone to fill an important post is an arduous task that takes time, resources and money.  Often the decision to let someone go is a prolonged one, and the replacement recruitment process takes even more time and effort.  Competition is fierce, and the playing field isn't always equal.  And the reality is that very often it is simply a crap shoot; a guessing game that you hope will turn out right.  And when it doesn't work out (and if we are honest with ourselves, it doesn't work out much of the time), then there is great reluctance to quickly move to yet another change process - taking more time, more effort, more resources.  And we can't lessen the negative aspects of letting someone go by offering a generous severance package like Netflix can.

Say your current development director isn't working out and you go through a protracted search for a new one, and within a few months that one isn't working out either.  Do you then go through the process again?  Can you afford the time and empty chair to even consider that?  Is the alternative to simply make do with what you have?  Can you afford to do that?  That is a big problem for us.  But if you want to create and maintain a truly "A" team, it is probably essential not to settle, even when circumstances seem to dictate you have no other immediate choice.

In another interesting article (this one by Ryan Babineaux posted on the Daily Beast and reported on Yahoo), the point is made that successful company cultures embrace the idea of "Failing quickly in order to learn fast—or what Silicon Valley entrepreneurs commonly call failing forward—is at the heart of many innovative businesses."  The advice is to accept that there will be countless mistakes made, but that the response ought to be to recognize them as early as possible and move quickly to try to correct them.  If the culture of 'A' list talent is critical to not only job satisfaction and workplace happiness (for everyone) - which directly impacts success - then the advice to quickly move on likely applies to hiring and firing of people as well.

This harkens back to two of the principles set forth by Patty  McCord in her article about the principles employed at Netflix:  1)  Hire, Reward, and Tolerate Only Fully Formed Adults, and 2) Managers Own the Job of Creating Great Teams.  Bottom line is that the culture of a workplace sets the tone for everything an organization does.  It isn't easy to get it right, and arts organizations lack many of the resources high tech companies enjoy in mounting the effort, but we need to start asking the right questions about how we make our organizations the absolute best we can make them.  And people are the heart of the organization.  

Clearly, the chance to work as part of an 'A' list of bright people does not trump all the other negatives of inadequate pay, a dearth of skills enhancement opportunities, limited chances for advancement, ineffective leadership and constantly having inadequate resources to do your job - but it does set a certain tone for an organization and is likely a fundamental stating point to address the other challenges.    The most successful organizations will put that issue on the table and find ways to move in the direction of assembling and then keeping such an 'A' team.  If there are people who aren't cutting it and you need to let them go, do it now.  Your obligation is to the whole of the organization and to all the other people on your team.  Be direct, honest and kind, but do it.  As Patty McCord said in her article - that team is more important than foosball and free sushi in attracting people you want, and, I would add, in your ultimate success and even survival.

Have a great week.  And for those of you in the north and east - stay warm.

Don't Quit.
Barry

Interview with Santa Claus

Merry Christmas
"And the beat goes on......................."

Here's a gift from Santa Claus - a brief interview:

Barry:  Thanks for sitting down with me.  I know your big day is just around the corner.

Santa:  Yes, yes, lots still to do, but somehow it always gets done every year.  It's like producing a big play, or musical, or festival.

Barry:  I was wondering where the arts fit into your work?

Santa:  (chuckles).  Why the arts are everywhere in Santa’s work.  In the toys, their design and creation, and in the decorations, the wrapping, the gifts, the pageantry, the celebrations, the singing and the performances; in  the story telling, the photos, the memories.  And more than that - in the wonder, and awe; in the beauty and creativity. I exist because generation after generation of parents want their children to know and experience some magic.  Am I so different from art?  There wouldn’t be any Santa or Christmas without the arts.  The arts are a big part of what it’s all about.

Barry:  Then artists are part of all of that?

Santa:  But of course.  Artists are everywhere in my life.

Barry:  You have a lot of help.  The elves I mean.  How many of them are artists?

Santa:  (Ho Ho Ho).  They’re all artists.  Everyone of them.  And beyond the elves, all my helpers out there in your world.  Artists of all kinds who make the magic of the season happen.  The season’s art is hard to miss.  Every decorated tree in every house.  Every song that is sung.  Every card that is written. Every meal that is cooked. Every story that is told.  The elves sing and dance while they create all year long.

Barry:  In my field, we’re trying very hard to get arts education back in the schools.  Do you have any advice for that?

Santa:  (chuckles).  You know little kids are all artists.  They know that intuitively.  Just ask them.  They will tell you.  Now some of them grow up and don’t want to admit they’re artists anymore, and some of them actually begin to doubt they are artists.  But deep inside they know.  I think its wonderful that you are trying to get arts education back in the schools, but perhaps you might think about spending some time and energy teaching the kids that it’s alright to think of themselves as artists - because they are.  If you can somehow give them permission to shout this to the world, you might find after awhile that more of them will grow up allowing themselves to think as creative beings.  And be more supportive of you.  And you might also spend some energy convincing their parents that letting them be the artists they know themselves to be is healthy and helpful to them.  Parents want the best for their kids.  If you want arts in the schools, maybe you can start with their parents.  If they demand it, it will eventually happen.

You might be surprised at how many of the letters I get are full of artwork - quite impressive too I might add.  I should also mention that in all my travels (and you can imagine they are quite extensive), the greatest gallery and museum in the whole world is (can you guess?) - it’s the refrigerator.  I see art created by the boys and girls and displayed (proudly) on the refrigerator doors in millions of homes all across the world.  Lots of Christmas trees and renderings of me around this time of year.

Barry:  We’re very heavily involved in Placemaking efforts in the arts.  Do you have any thoughts on that?

Santa:  (chuckles).  Well, of course, the arts make a place better.  And every place needs art.  And so I think what you are doing there is wonderful.  But it’s really not so much about the place as the people in those places, right?  You know in my work I always focus on the kids.

Barry:  There was a little controversy in the last week or so over some remarks that you are “white”.  Did you catch that?

Santa:  (smiles).  I get a kick out of how important color seems to be to some of you.  I’m part of the spiritual world. I live in people’s hearts and souls.  I’m whatever color you want me to be, whatever color you see - white, black, brown, yellow, the red and green of the season.  I’m even purple to some folks.  I’m an idea, the better instinct of humankind.  I’m about giving - especially to little children.  You want to know what color I am - look in the mirror.  I’m any color, and every color.

Barry:  We are concerned in the arts with trying to help our people become better leaders?  How might we do that?

Santa:  Well I’m just an old man with a really good job.  But it seems to me that being a good leader isn’t so hard, if that’s what you want to be.  Just do what you know in your heart to be the right thing, and do it with conviction and passion, and I think people will see that and respect that and relate to it.  And I suppose that it’s always wise to treat everybody with respect.  Start there.

Barry:  What do you think of technology and all the advances of late?

Santa:  Oh, I think it’s wonderful.  All kinds of fantastic new toys out there for all of you that aren’t little kids anymore.  Many of my outside helpers are involved in dreaming up these wonderful toys and then helping me by building them.  These toys show up on more and more lists of what kids want, you know.

Barry:  Actually, Santa, they aren’t really toys.  We’ve come to depend on these advances to do our work and live our lives.  We need them.

Santa:  You need air, and water, and food and shelter, and beyond that a sense of joy in your work, purpose, friends, family and love.  The rest are toys that come and go, and sure, they make your life easier I guess (if you say so).  But like the train set you yourself needed when you were eight years old that I brought you, there will be other toys to come.  And your needs will change.

Barry:  We’re also concerned with our declining audiences.  What are your thoughts on what we can do?

Santa:  (Ho Ho Ho)  Your audiences aren’t declining.  There are more people making art, being creative, seeing and enjoying art, looking for art,  then ever.  They may not be coming to you for their art as much as you would like, but then maybe you need to figure out how to get the art to them.  Your world is pretty complex, with so many demands on your limited time, and so much you have to do, that people are finding other ways to have art in their lives.  This technology you speak of - it is an unbelievable way to help you reach out to more people is it not?  Why don’t you use it more?  Or figure out other ways to share what you do?  Now some folks may not want you to make any changes, while others do.  Can’t you appeal to them all?  Isn’t art a pretty big tent?

Barry:  Have you had any recent “aha” moment?

Santa:  I have the same “aha moment” all the time.  Every time I hear little kids giggling, or I notice someone older who sees something of beauty, something that strikes their imagination  and that person goes “wow” - and I think to myself that there is a lot to like in humankind; that the force for decency and good among humans is so strong, so much stronger than all the missteps people make, that life is good.  I exist because of that force.  Art does too doesn’t it?

Barry:  We struggle Santa to pay for what we do, and it isn’t easy.

Santa:  No, I am sure it’s not, but my own experience is that if you champion excellence, and open your doors as wide as you can, that people will come.  Not every toy we build here works that well.  We have to keep coming up with new toys, and make the old toys that everyone loves, even better.  It’s a challenge, but the elves (the artists) never seem to tire of the challenge.  A long time ago, I use to make all the toys myself.  Now of course, there are so many more little boys and girls around the world, that I have become somewhat of an “administrator” I guess, but I remain an artist too, and I know that in both roles there is a never ending process of working and reworking and trying to make it all work.  Easy?  No, but worth it.  People know that what you do is important.  People value music, the theater, dance, paintings and sculpture, films, folk art.  They sometimes forget just how much it adds to their lives, but they know.  Maybe you need to spend more time showing them exactly what you need and what you will do with it.  Don’t make it so general and boring.

Barry:  We do lots of research Santa.

Santa:  Me too.  I ask the boys and girls what they want, and they tell me.  Very specifically most of the time.   Have you tried that?

Barry:  Sometimes it’s discouraging Santa.

Santa:  Hmmm.  Yes I can see that.  But do what I do - look into the faces of those who get the gifts you have to give, and you will see how much what you do is worth it.  There simply isn’t time enough to question why it isn’t all easier.  Don’t Quit.  Isn’t that what you say?  I also like a good cookie to fortify myself sometimes, but Mrs. Claus says I have to watch it or some of those chimneys will be too small for me.  I just tell her the magic will make it work.  And it does.

And now I really have to get back to work.

Barry: Checking the list, finding out who’s naughty and nice?

Santa:  (Ho ho ho).  You know little boys and girls aren’t really naughty.  Oh yes sometimes rambunctious, sometimes curious, sometimes full of too much energy.  But they have good hearts.  The naughty and nice stuff is, I suspect, an invention of their parents to keep them a little compliant during the hustle and bustle of the season.

Barry:  Merry Christmas Santa, and I should add Happy Chanukah (came early this year), Happy Kwanza and all the other greetings of the season too.

Santa:  They’re all the same my son.  They’re all celebrations of life and faith and belief; an exaltation of family and friendship and love  -- and hope.  Doesn’t really matter who says it or how it is said.  The sentiment is what is important.  Lots of people around the world celebrate Santa Claus because they know that whatever their beliefs are, “giving” is something that brings us together, makes us part of something bigger than ourselves, and, of course, the children, and that is what it is really all about.  The arts are like that, aren’t they?


And here’s my gift to you:  Little boys and girls believe in me. And so do their parents really, because they know my true nature ---  just like little boys and girls love art, so do their parents.  Even if you don’t sometimes believe it.

So a very Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Season’s Greetings and love to you and everyone.

Ho Ho Ho!

And with that and a twinkle in his eye, he went outside to talk (it’s true) with Dasher and Dancer, and Prancer and Vixen, Comet and Cupid and Donner and Blitzen - and, of course, Rudolph --- and the interview was over.

Don’t Quit
Barry

Interview with Anthony Radich

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

I have long wanted to interview Anthony Radich at WESTAF (which distributes my blog).  I finally got him to agree.

Bio:  Anthony Radich has served as the executive director of WESTAF since August of 1996. In that capacity he is responsible for providing leadership to the thirteen-state regional arts organizations’ programs and special initiatives. He oversees WESTAF’s work in the areas of research, advocacy, and online systems development designed to benefit the cultural community. Prior to accepting his position at WESTAF, Radich served as the executive director of the Missouri Arts Council for eight years. There he led the successful effort to create a state cultural trust fund supported by a stream of dedicated state funding. Preceding his work in Missouri, Radich was the senior project manager for the Arts, Tourism, and Cultural Resources Committee of the National Conference of State legislatures (NCSL). As senior project manager, he worked with state legislators from across the country to develop state-level legislation and policy concerned with the arts, tourism, and historic preservation. While working for the NCSL, Radich was appointed by Denver Mayor Federico Peña to chair the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs, the city’s arts agency.

Radich earned a bachelor's degree in physical anthropology and a master's degree in art education from the University of Oregon. He also earned a doctorate from the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado Denver.

Here is the interview:

Barry:  You have long promoted the re-envisioning of state arts agencies. Define “re-envisioning.” To what purpose is this important, and where do you think the agencies are today in this regard?

Anthony:  The concept of developing state arts agencies was a very important idea and one that has leveraged tremendous benefits at the state and local levels. Through the state arts agencies, many of today's most important cultural organizations received state funding at critical times in their development. But that was then.

I talk about “re-envisioning” because the world is quite a different place from what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, when most of the state arts agencies were formed. Remember, that time was before the Internet, before public sector tax and expenditure limitations, and before the development of many of the now very significant arts-funding entities such as major community foundations and well-developed local arts agencies. One can either ignore this new reality or re-envision how to redesign a state arts agency so it can effectively work within this new context to serve the public.

When I talk about re-envisioning, I mean that the largely grantmaking-driven state arts agencies simply are not structured to excel in today's environment. This is primarily the case because the grantmaking function in the states as currently practiced requires an ever-expanding flow of funds to operate successfully in the long term. That dynamic is at odds with long-term and entrenched pressures to constrain the growth of governmental budgets. No one is picking on the arts here; take a look at how higher education budgets have been chopped away over the past 10 years.

Today's pervasiveness of technology and its future potential also play a role in my call for re-envisioning state arts agencies. How would state arts agencies look if they were newly established in today's technology-rich environment? While virtually all arts agencies deploy some technology, few of the agencies use technology as a central thrust in their work. I would argue that, even if they wanted do so, their being embedded in state bureaucratic structures largely dooms them to be followers and not leaders in the area of technology. A key reason for this is that the technology world moves very rapidly and with a high degree of flexibility—two attributes that are largely absent from governmental structures.

Finally, where state arts agencies may once have been envisioned as the major--or one of the major-- arts funders in a state, that vision has largely not been realized. Except in a few states, the state arts agency is usually one of many arts funders and often is smaller in budget size than one or more local arts agencies in the state. This different realization of the state-level arts-funding vision argues for a different approach to the way the agencies conduct business. It implies that inter-organizational collaborative work with other arts funders is more important than ever and that coordinated inter-organizational policy making rather than arts-agency-centric policy making is a path to success in today's more crowded funder environment. Many arts agencies are currently engaged in such collaborations, however, I would argue that the agencies are not structured in a way that will maximize them.

My call for re-envisioning is a challenge to state arts leaders and their allies in government and in the arts community to either think of new ways to dramatically increase their capacity to be funders—and thus realize the legacy vision of the agencies as major funders-and/or to develop ways that don't involve “big money” to leverage support and opportunities for the arts in the states. I don't envision any single means of accomplishing this but believe that some of the key elements that would undergird a successful re-envisioning of an agency would be: a) the development of more flexible staff structures so that the agencies can be more staff nimble and thus able to respond to rapidly changing conditions; b) the consideration of ways to become quasi-state agencies and thus free from the negative undertow of state restrictions while retaining that still-important connection to the state government; and c) an openness in the field to state arts agencies evolving in quite different ways and a view of that change as positive rather than a threat.


Barry:  Although you hold a doctoral degree, have a wife who is deeply involved in university-level education, and have an interest in advancing the field, you are not a known promoter of any arts administration program. What is the story here? Do you think we are doing what is necessary to insure well-trained, capable leaders for tomorrow? What should we be doing that we aren’t?

Anthony:  Let's be frank about arts administration programs—they are not all equal. I divide the programs into three types: a) serious programs with dedicated full-time and qualified academic staff; b) “barely there” programs that have been initiated with good intentions but have never secured the resources to become academically serious programs; and c) money grabs by institutions of higher education that would launch a master's degree program in gerbil grooming if they thought enough paying students would sign up. In fact, there are relatively few academically credible arts administration programs in existence. Most are actually training and continuing education programs.

When I recruit new employees, I seek bright people with good educations who also know how to communicate effectively in writing and in person. When I consider arts administration graduates for positions, I only seriously consider those who have graduated from what I consider to be academically credible programs; that is a baseline for full-time mid-to-senior level-employment at WESTAF in any position. I don't actively seek out graduates of top-tier arts administration programs because the number of graduates from such programs is fairly small, and I usually have strong applicants with more broad-based educations who can effectively engage in our technology and policy.


Barry:  What is your position on the equity question in the arts? Specifically, where do you stand on the issue that too much funding and too many resources continue to be allocated to the larger, Euro-centric arts organizations, and too little is left for the smaller, multicultural entities? What about the statistics that indicate that Latino and African American kids are the ones who are getting shut out of an arts education (at least at a far disproportionate rate in comparison to white kids across the country)?

Anthony:  There will always be a scarcity of funding for the arts just as there is a scarcity of funding for nearly all things. In the arts, this scarcity is exacerbated by the fact that the flow of arts funding has not grown much in most places in recent years, and the core of that funding is often tied up by entrenched interests. So what else is new?

Multicultural, new, and non-mainstream organizations do, however, have a new opportunity. In many communities, large traditional arts organizations have lost traction with their publics. The old argument that “our city needs a comprehensive art museum or a symphony orchestra or it will no longer be viewed as a serious city” has now been proven to be pretty hollow.  As a result, those who have the lion's share of arts funding can be challenged as they have not been able to be challenged before. Large legacy arts organizations are slipping from the entitlement shelf and, unless they can successfully defend their value to the public, they will ultimately lose their entitlement. The work for those who want to acquire these formerly locked-in legacy or entitlement funds is to ask for a review of the process that consistently allocates funds to the entitled. If that process no longer reflects the interests of the communities the funder is serving, the process needs to be changed. The process of funds reallocation is usually a little bit ugly. My experience is that someone has to put the question of fair process on the table and push for a redesign of that process to better fit the community's desires. This task is usually difficult, but is changing entrenched systems ever not difficult?

A more immediate concern that your question raises is the role of equity and diversity in the current arts agency efforts to promote the broader creative economy. I am concerned that the values of diversity and equity our field has stood for over the years are increasingly overlooked in creative economy conversations. In those conversations, I often hear examples of new jobs, new creative output, and newly revitalized areas—all good—but there is not much talk about diversity and inclusiveness. I believe our field should not be so ready to dance with economic development interests that we will discard years of good work in the areas of equity and diversity. We can bring those values to an arts economic development conversation, and we should.


Barry:  Over the years, the NEA has invested a great deal of money in regional arts organizations--where have these entities been successful and where have they struggled?

Anthony:  The long-term investment the NEA has made in Regional Arts Organizations (RAO) and the freedom the RAOs have been given to respond in very different ways to the needs and desires of the field present the Regionals with a challenge--how to maximize these advantages. The RAOs are rapidly moving beyond their core legacy activities of presenting and touring.  I would argue that the biggest challenge facing the RAOs is the challenge of imagining what they can be and what they can do in the future. They can be significant as organizations and make great contributions to the arts, but they first need to imagine themselves as potentially greater entities.


Barry:  You have been proactive in hiring young people at WESTAF. What has your focus on youth contributed to WESTAF in terms of success? Where has it failed?

Anthony:  The great majority of WESTAF employees are under the age of 35, and many are less than 25 years of age. At WESTAF, we always seek out young people because we want to be an organization that is building for a future reality, and our youthful employees can help us identify and then shape a part of that reality. Of course, WESTAF has a large position in technology, and often young people have vastly more experience in that area than others. But our employees are not all bureaucrats and technologists; we have several visual artists on staff as well as four very active musicians.

The failures we have had with young people are mostly related to the context in which they work. For many of our younger employees, WESTAF is their first job. Supervisory staff need to be aware of how people in their first jobs often need to understand even the most basic features of managing a job. However, more important, young staff have largely not worked in nonprofit arts organizations or state and local arts agencies. Because of that lack of work experience in organizations we serve daily, we need to spend more time teaching these employees about the environment of the people with whom they work.

These limitations are offset by the freshness young people bring to their work and their willingness to try new things. Not knowing the “traditional” or “right” way of completing a task is not a problem if an employee can come up with a better way of doing it.


Barry:  Is there a future to state support for the arts? The field has been stagnant for a very long time now. Why have all our advocacy efforts in this arena seemingly failed (unless you consider survival to be a victory)? What is the future of state arts agencies?

Anthony:  We are currently in a time of change and experimentation in state arts agencies. Most have realized that they need to change their positioning within state government and also alter the way they relate to the field if they are to have the strength to create positive change for the arts. Unfortunately, over the years some of the agencies had become what I call cultural policy closets in state government. By that I mean that they have been sidelined within state government and are considered too difficult to get rid of-but not important enough to empower. Obviously, this needs to change for the better.

The first ingredient of successful advocacy for advancement rather than survival of a state arts agency requires the establishment of a large and compelling vision. States that have created such visions have generally been able to advance. That vision is not “give us more money to do the good things we are already doing.” A second component of a such an advancement is the redefinition of the state arts agency as part of a coalition of state-level cultural interests. Such a coalition is an admission of the obvious: Most state arts agencies are too small to go it alone in today's difficult political climate. These two elements must be combined with the hiring of a top-tier lobbyist who has the positioning in the legislature and with the administration to actually help move things forward. Also most useful is the presence of a statewide advocacy group that can connect with elected officials at the local level and demonstrate that the ask is not from the arts agency but from the people of the state—and, of course, the vision should reflect that. Finally, state arts agencies need to line up influential individuals in business, government, education, the medical community, and elsewhere who can be briefed on the vision and provide it with informal support within the corridors of power. Of course, with these ingredients, one needs considerable persistence, but the job can be done.There very much is a future for state support of the arts. We just need to do a better job of creating a vision worthy of that support and then pursue that support.


Barry:  The WESTAF board seems to let you do any crazy thing you want. Why is that?

Anthony:  In the period 1995-1996, the WESTAF trustees and executive directors of the state arts agencies of the region decided to completely reorganize WESTAF. The reorganization was prompted in large part by the huge reduction in federal (NEA) funds experienced that year by all RAOs and state arts agencies. During that time, the WESTAF board and the region's executive directors of state arts agencies laid the groundwork for a faster moving and very entrepreneurial organization. The culture they wanted to instill in the organization was one of risk taking and leadership. To attain that vision, the group moved away from extensive group decision making about programs and services to a more corporate structure, where the board is much more of a policy and oversight entity. I have a lot of flexibility in what I do because the WESTAF trustees and the region's executive directors expect me to take risks. No one likes failure, but the WESTAF organizational culture deplores static behavior. The activity level-–including the “crazy ideas” at WESTAF--do not just reflect my interests, they are organization's interests.


Barry:  WESTAF has invested in the launch of many successful technology projects under your leadership. Why have you put so much of the agency’s focus into that area?

Anthony:  At WESTAF, we are involved in technology for many reasons. One often overlooked reason is our belief that the arts community should not just be a customer for software but should have an active role in building and benefitting from software that serves the arts community. With this approach, we have been able to build low-cost tools for the arts and have been more arts friendly in our construction and adaptation of software for use in the field.

We also view technology as a way to provide service to the arts while creating the foundation for earned income that can support other arts-related endeavors. The earnings from WESTAF's many technology projects support advocacy work in each state in WESTAF's region; WESTAF's annual cultural policy annual symposium; and initiatives such as the WESTAF “Resolutions Project, “ which is designed to inspire and support the advancement of state arts agencies. The flow of funds from earned-income projects makes it possible to support activities that cannot be underwritten by the NEA and that may take years and years—and considerable staff effort--to secure funding for from private foundations. The formula of technology ownership allowing for arts-community-influenced software to both provide useful services and also support important WESTAF initiatives is a good one for us, and we expect that part of our work to continue to grow.


Barry:  What do we need more - effective managers or risk taking entrepreneurs?

Anthony:  The safe answer here is that, of course, we need both. However, I would argue that risk-taking entrepreneurs can best succeed when they are placed in organizational environments that allow risk takers to succeed.


Barry:  What role do you think arts organizational “territoriality” - the instinct of organizations to be unwilling to share data and information (or even really cooperate) unless there is a clearly defined benefit to themselves - plays in keeping us from leveraging the power of our numbers and making real collaboration exponentially more difficult to effect? How does ‘territoriality’ impact our ability to develop and maintain a “cooperative sense of community” for the arts?

Anthony:  Arts administrators work in a highly uncertain world, and most of them have very limited resources.  Why wouldn't we expect them to be territorial? After struggling for so long, sharing difficult-to-find resources is not a natural act. You can call that territoriality, but I think it is a learned survival instinct of an arts administrator who has no buffer time or buffer resources to take a risk on collaboration.

I would argue that, in most cases, if the end goal of a collaboration were significant enough, realizable in a reasonable period of time, and required reasonable expenditure of time and funds, arts collaborations would be more successful. To attract the time and resources of a busy arts administrator, the goal of a collaboration must be so obviously beneficial that the administrator is willing to make the investment. I find that arts administrators don't dislike collaborations; rather, they have for too long been the victims of being invited into collaborations with very modest goals that are not worth their time and into collaborative processes that were poorly organized and time wasting.


Barry:  Is the arts administration ecosystem ultimately more concerned with protecting its own existence than it is in serving artists? Why?

Anthony:  The arts administration ecosystem often gets a bad wrap for not serving artists, but that system actually supports a huge base of artists. I view the arts administration ecosystem—mostly the administrators of arts organizations--as a major and often the major employer of artists. In this discussion, we need to keep in mind that most arts administrators are charged with providing arts programs and services to the public. Artists are part of that public and a very important part; however, serving artists is not the primary mission of most arts organizations.

What organization doesn't spend time “protecting its own existence”? Isn't that a good thing?


Barry:  Is the economic impact argument really meaningless on its face, as MichaelRushton has suggested? Did it nonetheless serve a purpose for us? Is it time to put it on the back burner?

Anthony:  The field of arts economic impact studies is populated by charlatans, experts, and the ignorant. Let me explain. There is an established academic and rigorous approach to conducting arts economic impact studies. Unfortunately, some of the most well known arts impact studies of the day do not meet even elementary standards of rigor and really never intended to even try. These are the charlatans. There are also arts leaders who have not taken the time to understand even the basic methods of economic impact studies; yet, in spite of their ignorance of method, they pontificate. These are the ignorant. Then there are the experts—individuals who have long labored in the field. But these experts largely write about this subject outside of the arts administration communication stream, and thus their work is relatively unknown to the arts community. So we have a situation with arts economic impact studies where the misleading and the ignorant have the floor in our field, and the truth tellers are largely unheard.

I believe that the root of the debate about the use of economic impact studies is the false dichotomy between the “arts-for-economic-sake” and “arts-for-the-economy's-sake” arguments. This is a false dichotomy because arts economic impact studies are a tool and usually designed to be one of a suite of arguments used to secure resources and opportunities for the arts. In times like today, the economic impact argument related to the arts can be especially powerful. However, eventually, an arts-for-art's sake argument may be just as powerful. The point here is that using an economic impact study to argue for the arts does not mean one does not believe in the value of the arts for art's sake. Rather, it means that there is a need to use that specific tool of argument at a particular time. During another time, a different tool may be selected.

One final word on this subject: Arts economic impact studies are useful and do have a worth. An example of their worth is the fact that virtually every other special interest has such studies, many of which are also poorly researched. In the contest for the allocation of dollars—especially in state and city elected bodies, the arts often need their version of an economic impact study in order to be seated at the table when the economics of an activity are discussed by leaders. Not having such a study out of some kind of sense of purity is just not politically savvy.


Barry:  Studies suggest that audiences for live arts-performing events are in decline, but there is contrary evidence that more people are interested in the arts than ever before. They are simply choosing to access and participate in different ways (including via technology). What do you think is the future of the live performing arts event? Can performing arts organizations survive without it?

Anthony:  I think our field needs to stop the hand wringing related to attendance and admit that parts of it are over built. In many communities, the arts organizations and the menus they present look like a vision of the arts from the late 1970s. Certainly, the world has changed since then. Some art forms need to be trundled off to the “not-interested-in-you-now” art-form museum, and others need to be revitalized to meet the participation tastes of today’s audiences. People like to be with people, and I don't see that changing. If success in the arts is attracting more of the people who want to be with other people, the field needs to do a better job of competing for their attention and participation.


Barry:  What should be the priorities of the next Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts?

Anthony:  I believe that the next NEA chair could make some headway by: a) Working with the leadership in the states to guide an effort to move state arts agencies forward in a significant way. The NEA allocates 40% of its funding to states and regions and could take a more proactive role in addressing the challenges the state arts agencies currently face; b) Allocating more attention to the infrastructure needs of the arts and recognize that, like the states, with a now very limited budget, infrastructure assistance may be a better way for the NEA to assist in the nation's arts development than is finding funds for more arts programming; c) Expanding the NEA's investment in local arts agencies. The local arts agency area is one in which very interesting growth is now occurring. The NEA's further fueling of that growth would be money well spent; and d) Imagining an NEA that has a vastly larger budget. Certainly, this is difficult to conceive of in today's toxic political environment, but why not plan now during this lean time and develop a vision for a $1 billion NEA budget and begin to create the coalition that could make that vision a reality?


Barry:  Bill Ivey said on his exit as chair of the endowment, that the agency (and by implication the arts) are the province of the East Wing of the White House; they are essentially something for a First Lady to dabble in but are not fodder for the policy-making apparatus of the West Wing. Do you think that is true today, what does that mean, and what should we do about it?

Anthony:  When an endeavor like federal arts advocacy lacks strength and national grassroots passion, its future is left to the vagaries of palace politics. We as a field have failed to build a successful and sustained national level advocacy effort. Until we do, we will be guided by the whims that flow through our national palace.


Barry:  Why do the arts continue to act like Oliver Twist, holding their bowl out, meekly begging “More, please, sir. Can I have some more?” Where is the anger? Why do the arts refuse to play hardball politics like every other successful interest group?

Anthony:  The arts community jealously guards its prerogatives, and one outcome of this is that a great distance has been opened among elected officials, persons who influence elected officials, and those asking them for arts funding. When the arts ask elected officials to provide support, they do so by strongly communicating that the elected officials will have little if anything to do with the development of programs and the distribution of public funds. So why is this not intriguing to elected officials who like to channel results to their home districts?

The arts don't need to turn all decision making over to elected officials, but those officials and their staffs need to be invited into conversations about program design, allocation patterns, and special initiatives. Not doing so in the political world makes one a beggar.  Frankly, we have done such a good job of insulating arts decision making from elected officials that they no longer have much interest in us. Combine that with the professionalization of the field that has resulted in the chasing away of many influential volunteers, and you have the foundation for a politically neutered arts field.


Barry:  What are the two or three big take-aways that you have learned over the course of your career?

Anthony:  I will tell you later closer to the conclusion of my career!


Thank you Anthony.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Don't Quit
Barry