Could greater use of co-leadership models offer a tool to diversify who leads our cultural organisation?

Could greater use of co-leadership models offer a tool to diversify who leads our cultural organisation?

Why is this research needed?

Those in leadership positions in the publicly funded arts and cultural sector do not fully reflect the demographic diversity of the UK. The report on Social Mobility in the Cultural Economy from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (September 2021) cites evidence of inequality and exclusion in the creative industries in the UK, which has been created through class, gender, race, disabilities, skills and place. It recommends accelerating progression of diverse talent and promoting inclusive leadership, to ensure that the creative leaders of the future are much more diverse. The reasons for under-representation at a leadership level are many and complex. This research proposes to focus on the role that adapting leadership models could play in changing who takes up and is appointed to senior roles in the cultural sector. 

What is already known about co-leadership in the cultural sector?

Ten years ago I undertook a research project as part of my Clore Fellowship to explore joint leadership by Artistic and Executive Directors. In this report I concluded a co-leadership model can work very well for organisations where a wide range of skills are needed at a senior level. In a volatile and complex world, having a ‘sounding board’ with whom to develop ideas and share challenges was another advantage. And when it was time for one of the co-leaders to move on, having a joint leadership model offered stability. I concluded ‘two heads are better than one’; so long as leaders have the competencies needed to collaborate, and accountability and values are shared. In the intervening decade there have been a few examples of new co-leadership models and appointments in the cultural sector, such as Sara Wajid and Zak Mensah at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, but as yet this model is still not widely understood or practiced.

When I undertook my original research, the range of competencies expected in a CEO and the complexity of cultural organisations’ financial, political and operational context was already becoming unrealistic. Since then leadership roles have only become more demanding and we have seen an increase in leaders stepping down from roles which come at too high a cost to their health and personal life. These intense working conditions impact leaders with caring responsibilities, health issues or disabilities most keenly. As a leadership development professional I regularly meet leaders who chose not to apply for these roles in the first place, because of the demands of the roles and others who, due to structural racism, ableism or sexism in the cultural sector, have been unable to develop the experience Boards expect of those applying for senior roles today.

Moreover, I work with Boards that, whilst recognising the need to broaden the profile of who they recruit into senior roles, see job-sharing or co-leadership roles as inherently more risky or costly. Some hold heroic and unrealistic assumptions about ‘what it takes’ to successfully lead an organisation in terms of working patterns or personal resilience that prevent real workforce change happening. There is a long way to go before more Boards are see co-leadership as an opportunity.

How can you get involved?

Building on my initial research, and the wider leadership literature around co-leadership, I wish to examine whether co-leadership, including the AD/ED model but more widely other forms of shared senior roles, offers a practical solution to increasing the diversity of who applies for, and is appointed to, senior leadership positions in the cultural sector. 

I will be working on this research during Autumn/ Winter and publishing my findings in February. There will also be an event to share the discuss the findings around February/ March, hosted by the Office for Leadership Transition – and I’ll share details of this nearer the time.

At this stage I am looking for suggestions of people to speak with as part of my research, particularly 

  • those involved in recruitment of senior leadership roles in a Board capacity, and, 
  • women, people with disabilities and people of colour who aspire to or have experience of senior leadership positions. 

If this is you, or have suggestions of who I might talk to please do get in touch – thank you!

This research has been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), in conjunction with the Clore Leadership Programme. I am being supervised by Dr Jonathan Price, School of Performance and Creative Industries, University of Leeds.

Co-leadership: a research report

Co-leadership: a research report

Ten years ago I undertook a research project as part of my Clore Fellowship, to explore how the model of joint leadership by joint Artistic and Executive Directors worked. I conducted many interviews with experienced ADs and EDs to understand how these roles worked together, what competencies were needed to make the model work well; the benefits and risks of having co-leaders and how Boards could recruit into these roles. It was a fascinating project and I was fortunate to speak to many inspiring senior figures who generously shared their experiences of making co-leadership work.

Recently I was contacted by an academic who is publishing a far more extensive survey of the topic, and this prompted me to re-read that report and reflect on how much has changed in the past decade.

At the time my interest was both professional and personal. I had been struggling for years the find the right role for myself in galleries and museums, having stepped out of curatorship earlier in my career. In those days curating was the only route into leadership roles in galleries. I also had a young family and was finding the prospect of a solo leadership role intimidating.  

Via the research I concluded the co-leadership model works well for complex organisations where a wide range of skills are needed at a senior level: like theatres or art galleries. In those organisations where leaders might, at times, need to work closely with artists on projects or in the rehearsal room or travel extensively for work, having a joint leadership model enabled the capacity for this to happen. Also in a volatile world, having a ‘sounding board’ with whom to develop ideas and share challenges was another advantage. And when it was time for one of the co-leaders to transition to another post, having a joint leadership model offered stability. So I concluded ‘two heads are better than one’; so long as people appointed had the competencies needed to collaborate well, and accountability and values were shared.

When I first published this report I suggested that art galleries and museums might do well to consider a co-leadership model, and indeed quite a few did. Tate had already pioneered the joint leadership mode in Liverpool (from 2006) and St Ives (from 2007). Other galleries and museums began to adopt an AD/ED model during the years that followed my report.

Looking back at this report now, with the benefit of another decade of experience of organisational and leadership development behind me I’d frame my recommendations slightly differently. But I would not change the core thesis: that collaborative leadership has many benefits and that to work well joint leadership needs careful design and leaders with collaborative values and skillsets. 

There are two things I would change however:

Firstly, I no longer think that the AD/ED model is necessarily the optimum model for art galleries/museums. I still very much believe in collaborative leadership styles and shared responsibility, but that could be achieved via a CEO-led organisation with a senior management team, or a co-directorship with 2-3 leaders. Personally I like collaborating with people as equals, but other models can work. This was very much the view of one of my interviewees at the time – Caroline Collier – who advised me that a collaborative style was more important than a structure where two leaders were equals. 

Wider studies of this form of pluralist leadership find the co-leadership structure is often introduced in sectors or organisations where multiple interests, which may be in tension, need to be afforded equal importance in strategy. Initially some of the rationale for having more ED-types in the galleries sector was to counter-balance an overly artistic centred model of leadership which overlooked these wider concerns. 10-15 years ago we needed the structural reinforcement for an audience champion at the ‘top’ of galleries and art museums, today I feel this is less necessary. We are seeing a new generation of artistic leaders in the visual arts sector moving into key roles who have a broader civic, educational or social vision for their organisations.

Secondly, I would make a far stronger case for co-leadership as a practical solution to CEO roles becoming impractical and overwhelming far. Co-leadership offers a more inclusive model for those with caring responsibilities or health issues/ disabilities. I felt this strongly at the time but hesitated to articulate that view for fear it would be perceived as my personal agenda.

Re-reading the report what strikes me as still very relevant is the question of what systems, structures, skills and values enable collaborative leadership to work. This is the ‘work’ that I continue to grapple with when supporting leaders as a coach, or teams and organisations as an organisational development consultant. How do we work together is a way that makes the best of all our talents and energy, and which – through collaboration – enables us to create things which go far beyond a sum of their parts. 

But it also strikes me that in embracing collaborative leadership we have the opportunity to re-shape leadership roles that will contribute to ensuring our senior staff better represent our wider society in terms of gender, disability and caring responsibilities.

Making change happen

Making change happen

We live in what has been termed VUCA times: volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Certainly the past few years have seen the world turned upside down by a pandemic and now by a war that threatens peace in Europe. But given it was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who said, ‘the only constant in life is change’, I rather suspect the pace and scale of change has always felt overwhelming.

As a leader knowing how to navigate and respond to change is therefore an essential skill, and one which is often part of the leadership courses I design and run for organisations. As a leadership and organisational coach enabling others to create and respond to change is my core business, so I thought it might be useful to share some of the tools I regularly use to help others understand, respond to and plan for change.

Sometimes change is forced on us, but there are also times when we want to make changes. We might want to tackle inequalities in society through our work, or creating other positive social changes. Or we might want to change some aspect of how our organisation works, maybe shifting to hybrid working or becoming more environmentally-sustainable. All of these scenarios are about creating change and these tools apply to internal and external change and are scalable from individual life changes to restructuring an organisation or creating social change. 

Is it worth the effort?

Change takes effort and resource. We often need to support of others to achieve change. So, before we start making a change it’s a good idea to be really clear for ourselves and with others about the ‘why’: the case for change. 

The Opportunity/Threat matrix offers a really simple format to think through the benefits of making a change, and the risks of not making it. 

You basically work through 2 questions – what are the opportunities if we do this, and the risks if we don’t – in both the short-term and the longer-term. It’s up to you to define what short/long-term horizons make sense for your situation, but be specific – e.g. in the next 12 months/ the next 5 years. 

It can be really helpful to involve others in this exercise. This broadens the perspectives involved in the analysis but also enables those with a stake in the decision to fully understand the arguments around opportunity and risk.

You might decide, after completing this exercise, there isn’t a strong enough case to press ahead with the change – but if there is then the following tools can help the process go more smoothly.

How to make change happen or ‘tip’?

This simple ‘equation’ sums up the key considerations at play when we’re trying to make change happen. I came across this version at Henley Business School on a change leadership course and it’s based on the Gleicher modelled, popularised by Beckhard-Harris, with one important variation.

This model identifies 4 key ingredients that need to be in present for change to happen, and one factor (cost) which inhibits change. These ‘ingredients’ are outlined in the illustration below:

Change ‘tips’ when the other ingredients outweigh the cost.

This model I’ve used countless times since encountering it at Henley, includes ‘capacity’ which the original Gleicher version lacks. 

In my experience capacity is often the missing ingredient in the cultural/ creative sector – we lack the time or resource to invest in enabling change. Technically this is what is referred to as ‘development capital’; resource which we can use to invest in doing things differently, experimenting, doing training, buying new hardware and software. Too often our budgets and diaries are over-committed and we lack this space and resource.

I use the equation to assess the likelihood of success of change and identify where there might be blocks so we can identify what actions are needed if change is to happen. It can be used at the planning stage, and during review of how things are going. 

How to respond to unwanted change?

You may well have heard or seen ‘the change curve’? There are actually two curves, but the one most of us know is also known as the grief curve, as it emerged from the work of psychologist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross looking at the main stages of bereavement. However, it has also long been applied more generally to understand how we respond to external changes we perceive as negative.

I find model this helpful for a number of reasons. It can be helpful to be aware of these psychological reactions so we can be sensitive with others and self-aware. For example, it can be unrealistic to expect people to be able to quickly process ‘bad news’ and adapt, it might take some time. 

And we need to be cautious not to allow ourselves – or others – to spend too much time in the ‘bargaining’ stage. Bargaining is when we offer a solution to the change which doesn’t take full account of the situation: re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Thinking we’re doing ‘our bit’ for climate change by buying a re-usable coffee cup but not making the bigger changes to our lifestyles really needed.

We might need to do a little bargaining before we’re ready to accept the full reality of the situation (the ‘depression’ stage). But we want to avoid spending too much time bargaining if we want to adapt constructively to negative change and reach the stages of testing and acceptance. 

The other thing I like about the Kubler-Ross change curve is that it sits well with my experience of what makes me feel better when Shit Happens (another technical term I learned on that course at Henley). Working out what I can do to be helpful or to improve things, where I do have some agency, usually helps me feel a lot better.

How to keep the momentum going?

I promised you two change curves. The second applies to changes we want, hence it’s name ‘the positive change curve’. What is shows is that – basically – our enthusiasm wanes over time. We start off ill-informed about what exactly the change will involve and how long it will take, and as we discover more about the reality our optimism is likely to drop. If the gap between expectation and reality is too big we might decide to quit. But also we might form a more realistic but still positive view of the change and move into the ‘Informed Optimism’ stage.

How is this model helpful? It reminds us that we need to attend to morale along the way; to celebrate our successes, give ourselves some ‘easy wins’ early on etc. Simply making time to review, constructively, and acknowledge what’s been done and achieved can be enormously helpful – and the simple set of questions are typical of the kind I use with individuals and teams to this end.

Also, the smaller the gap between expectations and reality the fewer morale issues lay ahead. So the positive change curves reminds us of the importance of realistic plans.

How to involve/ engage others?

Last but not least, this final tool offers a simple framework (and worked example) of how to explain what you’re trying to do, and why, to others so you can engage them. Whether you want other people to do things differently as part of the change, to generate ideas about what needs to change or simply to support or approve of the change you’re planning – you’ll need to be able to clearly and simply explain what you’re doing, why, how and what you need from them.

These 4 simple questions are a template for those communications – whether they take place via face-to-face informal conversations, a formal presentation or written formats (or all three).

I hope there’s something in these tools that’s useful for you. If you agree with Heraclitus that ‘the only constant in life is change’, then learning a few new techniques about how to master change is time well spent.

Looking for a supportive peer-learning space to develop your thinking and confidence?

Looking for a supportive peer-learning space to develop your thinking and confidence?

What is Action Learning?

Virtual Action Learning offers a supportive, structured peer-learning environment. Using simple group coaching techniques, Action Learning enables fresh thinking and builds confidence. It involves a small group of peers coming together regularly, for a finite period of time initially, to support one another to work through their work challenges and reflect on their learning: typically around 6 people, for 6 months every 4-6 weeks. 

What’s on offer?

Starting in September I’ll be offering an opportunity to join a new virtual set. Sessions are facilitated by me – Claire Antrobus. I’ve been involved with Action Learning as a trained facilitator and participant for over a decade. No previous experience is necessary – in our first session we’ll cover what Action Learning is, how it works and you’ll have an opportunity to try it out and meet the rest of the group. 

If, after the first session, you decide Action Learning is not for you then you are under no obligation to continue.

Participants will be asked to sign up to the principles of action learning, which include working in a non-judgmental, supportive and confidential learning space, and to attend a minimum of five of the six sessions. In return we offer you:

  • Access to a regular safe and creative space to think through your own challenges in a reflective and solutions-focussed way
  • Opportunity to practice and develop your reflective learning techniques and coaching skills to improve your own and others’ performance
  • A supportive community of practice working together over a six-month period
  • Support from a highly experienced Action Learning facilitator/ trainer, including advice and resources about how to set up your own set after this series.
  • Pay What You Can rate for anyone earning less than UK average wage (or self-employed equivalent).

I’m interested – what’s involved?

  • A three-hour introductory training session covering the foundations of Action Learning and opportunity to practice the core skills of active listening and open questions.
  • Four x 2hr follow-on monthly Action Learning sessions via Zoom.
  • A final 3hr review session, covering self-facilitation to enable to group to continue self-supporting after this initial period.
  • A PDF Action Learning handbook to support you during and beyond the sessions.

By the end of the sixth session the group can decide to complete its work together – or may choose to carry on independently, self-facilitating using the skills and experience you will have developed.

Previous sets have included people with a wide range of experience from across the cultural and wider non-profit sector including self-employed coaches, artists, CEO/ senior leaders from arts organisations, creative consultants and producers and those working inside organisations in a variety of roles.

What have previous participants said about it?

Feedback from recent AL participants includes:

‘It’s a great way of creating space for your own reflection with a group of supportive peers. But there are also huge benefits in developing your active listening skills and the ability to ask questions that help unlock insights for others in the group.’

‘I simply can’t recommend it enough. It was a rare opportunity to step off the treadmill to reflect, learn, listen and share challenges and ideas with a fantastic group of people. The structure of the Action Learning Set creates a space for exploration, idea generation and action. The facilitation of the group ensured that there was a really, warm, caring and human touch – where people felt able to share challenges with authenticity, vulnerability and generosity. It has really developed my active listening skills and given my working practices a reboot. Brilliantly organised, robustly managed and a great take away handbook that I’m referring to regularly.’

‘It’s a brilliant chance to connect with peers you might not otherwise meet, to practice the skills of group action learning, to have your challenges heard and to help others, with a concrete accountability framework that’s also easy to stick to and access.’

‘I joined the action learning set at a point of transition in my career and immediately found a supportive group of individuals willing to share their wealth of experience. During busy times attending the session felt like coming up for air.’

Action Learning is also very cost effective and I include training as part of the sessions so you’ll be equipped to run your own sets after this initial period, should you wish to continue. In 2021 I hosted two new sets, both of which have continued to self-facilitate and now function independently.

When recent studies have shown reflective practice – at the heart of Action Learning – can improve performance by 23%, the real question is how can you afford not to do it?

How do I find out more and what are the dates and costs?

To book your place or discuss whether this is for you just get in touch claire@claireantrobus.com

Intro session: 2-5pm Thursday 8 Sep

Set meeting dates: 3-5pm on Thursdays 13 Oct, 17 Nov, 15 Dec and 19 Jan 

Final: session 2-5pm, 9 Feb

Cost: £175 (or PWYC for those on less than UK average wage or self-employed equivalent)

Making feedback more fruitful

Making feedback more fruitful

Feedback can often feel like a spoonful of cod liver oil – you know it’s meant to be good for you, but we don’t relish it. And it can be hard to hear when you mainly hear about the things that are going wrong. You might wish someone also made time to tell you what’s going right? You’re doing your best after all….

And how often are you giving feedback to others? Research tells us that receiving regular (weekly), useful, feedback is one of the key factors for working at our best. Yet I often find people receive far less than this. 

Giving useful feedback is a key responsibility of all managers and an important skill for those of us who work with others. Below I’ve outlined a few principles about what good feedback looks like from research into productivity and staff performance. I hope these are useful whether you’re wanting more useful feedback for yourself or wanting to improve the feedback you offer others.

Let’s focus on useful feedback: rather than ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ feedback

Feedback should be useful and constructive – whether it concerns what is working well or what is not working well. ‘Feedback’ is simply information which enables a system or process to adapt. If ‘feedback’ doesn’t enable learning and improvement then it isn’t feedback – it’s criticism (generalised negative comments) or praise (generalised positive comments). Criticism has no place in the respectful and productive workplace. Praise is less useful than feedback, and arguably also has its downsides.

But we need to get the ratio right: we need to hear five times as much about what works than what doesn’t. Feedback about what works is the fertiliser prepares the ground to receive the tougher-to-hear feedback about problems. So don’t neglect the fertiliser!

Ensure it’s useful

How can you know what feedback is useful? Simply ask – would you value some feedback? What would you like feedback on? What format works best for you – written, a chat after the event etc?

Providing useful feedback takes time: make sure you’re using your time well by focussing on the areas where feedback is most helpful. If someone already knows there’s a problem with X, it’s pointless or maybe even demotivating to be told it again. If they’ve asked for you to look at Y, they are more likely to be receptive to what you have to say about that. 

BOOST performance with feedback

There are a few similar models around, but I really like this BOOST model from Andi Roberts (which I’ve slightly adapted) not least as it starts with balanced: reminding us of the ratio in favour of what works. The other aspect of balanced is that we invite feedback as well as offering it. If you’re in a position of power then others might take some encouragement to offer feedback. You can help by avoiding being defensive and showing you’re listening by acting on what you hear. 

Ownership is important too – we might avoid speaking directly for fear of offending but being clear is critical. And this cuts both ways – we need to feel feedback is sincere, so that’s going to require us to take time to observe and notice what others are doing well so we can let them know directly.

Providing useful feedback is an essential skill for any manager, and we cover feedback skills and practice on a number of the courses I run in-house for organisations and as open online courses. Get in touch if you’re interested in finding out more about training. And let me know how you get on with the BOOST model. 

Pin It on Pinterest