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.

Pin It on Pinterest