what’s in a name?

Some people get very uppity about job titles and what they call themselves: I’m not normally one of those people. But when it comes to visual arts managers I think we have an image problem and that the job title doesn’t help.

In my book, a job title should give you a clear sense of what that person does, and perhaps (if it matters for the sake of clarity or credibility) where they sit in the hierarchy of the organization. That’s the raison d’être of a job title: but, as with the title of a book or film it probably helps if the title sounds a bit interesting too.

One of the things I struggled with when undertaking my research into leadership models in the visual arts and theatre was what to call people doing the ‘managing’ jobs (as opposed to the artistic jobs for which they are clear titles like Artistic Director or curator) in a way that was clear – so I wasn’t talking at cross purposes with my interviewees. People were called a variety of titles: General Managers, Deputy Directors, Executive Directors, Head of Business and Administration, Head of Amin & Operations, Administrator, CEO. Often people in different organisations were doing very similar things under a different title – or called the same thing but had very different roles.

Also – and you’ll just have to take my word, or read the report to find out why this isn’t a sweeping generalisation, as otherwise this will be a very long post – there’s a problem with supply of suitable arts manager candidates in the visual arts and curators who go on to become solo Directors rarely have the opportunity or inclination to develop adequate management and leadership skills. So we desperately need 1) more people to consider a career as a visual arts manager and 2) curators to want to develop their management and leadership skills more.

This led me to conclude that we needed to re-brand and re-name arts manager roles in the visual arts so that people who work with them (and may consider these roles as career paths) have a clearer, and more positive, sense of what they do.

So what do we call them and how do we describe what they do? As discussed in my first post of this series, successful senior arts managers in the visual arts are usually extroverts, defined as ‘Resource Investigators’ in terms of Belbin’s team roles; put simply they are outward- facing, risk-taking, entrepreneurial people who make things happen, not the traditional accountant or administrator stereotype.

In theatre the senior management role (the Executive Director) is often linked with that of Producer. Some ED positions incorporate being the lead Producer in the organisation, or in a trading subsidiary. Many people now working as EDs have been producers earlier in their careers. When talking about what made a great ED, one theatre Director I interviewed explained it in terms of the producer role:

‘What you need in a producer is someone who’s extroverted, who likes to get on the phone, get out there… Producers have to be risk-takers and have to have a rashness about them [..] An OK producer just makes it happen, a brilliant producer exploits it; they get international touring, they get people excited about it. The producer is doing the external identity of the company. You need to have someone who’s good at external relations, so that you can do that thing you’re good at which is direct plays.’

One useful description of the manager role in an arts organization (which came to me c/o Battersea Arts Centre) is ‘Organisational Producer’. There is a major difference between the role of an administrator looking at the day-to-day running of the organisation and the far more strategic ‘organisational producer’ role which helps shape and market ideas, and enables their successful realisation through securing the resources and creating the conditions required. One is an operational role, the other strategic.

Viewing arts managers leading organisations in these terms – as organisational producers – offers a better understanding of what they do, the benefits a good arts manager brings and the competencies required to do the job well.  However, in the visual arts, the concept of ‘producer’ is less familiar than that of curator – although arguably many curators (especially those who are independent or working in small spaces) are often undertaking many aspects of a producer’s role. So whilst I think the ‘organisational producer’ term has merits I’m not entirely convinced this translates to the visual arts when the term ‘producer’ has less currency and status.

That means I’m still looking for a term that sums it up nicely. I’d be very interested to hear your suggestions about how we describe these senior management roles in our sector – answers on a postcard (or via Blog Comments or @claireant are very welcome).

Talking to various people about my research it was also often difficult to describe what arts managers did without resorting to framing this in negative terms (I heard several people say they did ’everything except the art’ which was neither accurate nor a particularly attractive job description). It was rarely this simple – artistic, programming, organizational and business strategies are related to one another closely in most organisations. Leading the ‘business’ end of an arts organization can’t be a wholly separate endeavour from leading the programme/ artistic side of things – or you’ll soon encounter problems. Therefore ensuring both artistic and organizational leaders are able to work collaboratively is also essential.

In the next post in this series I share what I discovered about how senior managers need to work with artistic staff if executive director, general manager etc roles are to be successful in practice.