Joint leadership models in the visual arts: interim findings and questions

Are two heads better than one? Why does the visual arts tend to have a single Director (and almost always a curator by training) leading the organisation, whereas in theatre a joint leadership structure is more common? What does an Executive Director bring to the table and how do successful joint leadership models work?

These are the questions I’ve been travelling around England asking leaders from the theatre and visual arts sector over the past few months. So far I’ve interviewed 16 Directors, or former Directors, about their expeirence and views on the subjects – and between now and January I’ll be talking to another 10-15. So at this mid-point in my research I wanted to reflect on key themes and questions that are emerging – and to seek your responses and suggestions about any other angles I need to consider. How do these findings strike you – does it tally with your own experience or have I got this very wrong?

The summary below is very draft and lacks details, examples and references at this stage – it’s simply a summary of key points. Ignore these shortcomings, but please do let me know what you think of the conclusions and questions:

The need for collaboration

The case for greater collaboration in all areas of society and business is strong and my initial reading of management and leadership texts (Peter Senge, Belbin, Archer & Cameron) suggests that leaders in all domains need to work more collaboratively within and beyond their organisations to respond to an increasingly complex and inter-related operating environment – whether we’re talking about tackling climate change or responding to cuts in public services. Many commentators (MMM, Susan Royce recent report of VA business models, ACE new policy framework) demonstrate a similar increased emphasis on the need for collaboration between organisations. Commentators agree that when it works well collaboration extends the capacity and effectiveness of organisations – but it requires skills and effort to create successful partnerships, which are often under-estimated. And poor partnerships definitely cause more harm than good.

The increasing complexity of managing arts and cultural organisations – the need to engage with external stakeholders, recent capital developments, the need to generate greater income and raise funds – is driving a move towards joint leadership models. It is widely agreed that the range of skills and attributes (never mind energy and hours in the day) required of today’s leaders cannot be found in a single person any more. In the visual arts, a need to develop business models which rely less on subsidy and engage with audiences in new ways is driving some of these developments.

Benefits of joint leadership models

The perceived benefits of joint leadership models include that it increases capacity at a senior level in the organisation, particularly in the outward-facing roles of engaging with stakeholders, representing the organisation nationally and internationally, forging new partnerships for co-productions, touring etc. Many feel that better and faster decisions are made by two directors working together, providing greater confidence, a sounding board and even a safety net in some cases. Others go further suggesting this dialogue at the heart of the organisation generates new ideas and the whole is more than a sum of the parts. Several interviews saw joint leadership at the heart of a dialogic and collaborative culture than extended into the wider organisational culture. Importantly, in many cases, having a second director responsible for the organisation and business means that arts and cultural organisations can retain an artistic director at the top of the organisation – whereas if a sole Director had to lead this would be less suitable for an artistic specialist or they would be less able to fulfil their role effectively.

What makes for successful joint leadership?

Whether at an organisational or individual executive level, there are various models for articulating the conditions for success (Belbin’s team roles theory, competencies models, to name but a few). My interviews so far have revealed a consensus around ways of working, structures and skills/competencies/attributes – with communication (including ability to surface and manage conflict constructively) always near the top of the list.

Common values, and trust, are cited as being very important: and, interestingly, Belbin reports that common values enable teams to overcome difficulties that might otherwise be expected in terms of team role mis-matches. Talking to leaders who’ve been in several partnership relationships was revealing: each partnership is different, tailored to the individual strengths (and weaknesses) of the individuals concerned and the needs of the organisation at that point in time. Recruitment into partnerships and the role of the Board in managing and supporting joint leaders are clearly critical – and very live – issues, particularly in theatre.

In joint leadership models it is common that AD and ED differ in style and approach – with this being seen as an asset, although it’s also recognised these differences need to be recognised and managed. The extent to which skills and expertise were different varied – in some partnerships AD and ED shared very common skillsets and areas of expertise (although that’s not to say they had same roles), whereas in others there was far greater specialism. In team role theory and writing on collaborative leadership more widely this difference (be that in style or expertise) is considered the greatest asset of partnership working – the grit in the oyster which makes the pearl.

In the interviews I’ve explored the full range of existing options for leadership structure in performing and visual arts organisations: joint CEOs (AD/ED); AD reporting to ED; ED reporting to AD; Curator-Director with Deputy-Director. I’m not convinced that any one model is inherently better than the others and all need to be implemented well which is in itself an art (interestingly Archer & Cameron talk of 3 pillars for succesful partnership and structure is only one of them: behaviour and process are the other two).

I have a preference for which model I’d like to work in and so did some of the people I’d interviewed. Some preferred the joint model: others felt very strongly that joint responsibility wasn’t possible or ‘natural’ and that someone (either ED or AD – but most often AD) had to ultimately been solely responsible. I’m not convinced there is a ‘right’ model or that it’s worth exploring structures further – although discussions about structure do often reveal assumptions about leadership and the arts sector that are interesting. Perhaps it’s about the right model for the right context: by which I mean the needs of the organisation and the individuals forming that parternship.

What makes for a successful Executive Director?

While the responsibilities of EDs vary according to the needs of their context (both in terms of what their partner brings and also the needs of the organisation), their roles are very similar. It is essentially a strategic management role: cross-cutting, jointly responsible for developing the vision and principally responsible for creating the organisational framework and processes that underpin the implementation of this vision. In functional terms, EDs usually manage marketing/comms, visitor services, commercial activities, premises, IT, HR, development and finance but this depends on individual expertise and organisational need. Developing the brand (and organisational culture), stakeholder relationships, developing the wider strategy for the organisation beyond its programme (positioning, business plan) and organisational development were often seen as key responsibilities of the role.

The ED role was often spoken of in terms of ‘producing’ or ‘facilitating’. Many EDs brought a particular functional specialism (comms/marketing, finance, development were the most common) to the role they universally agreed that there was no standard pre-requisite technical comptencies – beyond people-skills and communication.

Whilst it was common for EDs to have artform knowledge and experience (in fact several EDs had trained as artists/ creatives) there was a far stronger artform knowledge and track record apparent in theatre – with the EDs I interviewed having spent most or all of their careers in theatre. Visual arts counterparts were sometimes in their first visual arts role, and several had begun careers in private sector. Another key difference related to their level of involvement in artistic programming with most theatre EDs being involved in programming decisions (although deferring to AD completely), and most VA managers seeing artistic decisions as quite separate and not their domain. ‘I do everything except the art’ was a common way of describing their role – although often they didn’t feel it was an accurate one. There is widespread consensus that artistic organisations should be centred on the art above everything else, and for many that also equates to the artistic personnel being at the top of the hierarchy.

Why does the visual arts sector have more joint leadership models?

The key insight I draw from my research at this stage is that there is another key question buried within my original proposal that needs considering further. Why doesn’t the visual arts sector seem to value management (and managers) and collaborative leadership more generally? What I hope the research will reveal is what the sector stands to gain by embracing both strategic management roles and a more collaborative approach to leadership.

For example, I’m struck that even those working in ED-equivalent roles in the visual arts (usually known as Deputy Directors) struggle to describe what they do in terms people understand – often resorting to unhelpful clichés (‘they do the art, I do the business; they do leadership, I do management;  they do risk and creativity, I make it happen and provide the voice of caution’). There is a real difficulty articulating the management role, particularly in VA, as evidenced in the confusion around titles and lack of consistency between roles in different organisations with the same title. I’ve also noticed that former strategic managers often leave employment in the sector to become independent consultants and (based on my own experience of consulting in the sector) suspect that independent consultants are often plugging the gaps in visual arts organisations that are created by a lack of in-house strategic management capacity.

There is no equivalent of the TMA (Theatre Managers’ Association – a professional body) in the visual arts. There is no clear career path, progression or role for strategic managers in the visual arts. Opportunities for training are minimal and industry standards are non-existent (in contrast to theatre where, as one interviewee commented, ‘at least you can learn the ropes on the job because there are, at least, some ropes’). Where strategic managers do exist their profile is far lower than the AD counterparts and they are rarely known of beyond their locality (one interviewee spoke about them being ‘invisible’ and few people even in those roles are aware of their peers). They move in different circles to ADs. Therefore, thinking about the final report, it may be useful to include pen portraits of what EDs in theatre do and bring to their organisations, as well as descriptions of what the existing VA strategic managers do.

At this stage I’m only just beginning to unpick what it is about the visual arts sector, and our culture, that explains this lack of strategic managers but theories to date include:

• A strongly individualistic culture in the visual arts, based around the artist and star curators who are also ‘auteurs’, which means that leadership of organisations tends towards heroic models where individual artistic vision trumps the brand of the organisation. (One interviewee said to me about the vision for his organisation ‘the vision is what the director does’).

• Linked to this, a tendency to value the art ‘product’ above all else to the extent that other aspects of the vision (such as the relationship with audiences, the role of the institution in its locality etc) are overlooked. This can result in believing the artistic programme and the wider vision for an organisation are the same thing and that vision is the sole domain of the artistic lead.

• The invisibility, externally, of strategic managers beyond their locality means the small number of individuals in these roles currently often have a low profile nationally. Combined with a confusion around articulating their roles and titles this means the benefits these highly valued individuals (often referred to as ‘unsung heroes’) bring to organisations is not better known. So if the wider sector isn’t clearly seeing the benefits brought by strategic managers they don’t know what they are missing. As one interviewee said, ‘I don’t think many people even know Executive Directors exist’. Related to this is the question of how we measure success in the sector: which is largely centred on peer-approval. For example, if the ED has improved trading income or attendance would this be valued by many on-lookers?

• Reluctance on the part of staff, Board and funders to increase what they perceive as ‘overhead’ costs by increasingly management capacity. A scepticism about management (‘we don’t need someone to tell us what to do, we need them to do it’) is fairly widespread in a sector which is over-stretched and under-capitalised.

In a way this seems to be the most important and difficult aspect of the research, because unless we understand better what the barriers are to increasing in-house strategic management capacity then nothing will change.

I’d be really grateful for your comments (online and offline if you prefer claire@claireantrobus.com or @claireant) and suggestions based on this summary so far – particularly in relation to this last part of the question relating to our attitudes within the visual sector to management and managers.