Yesterday's Times covered a new program in New York I heard about a few months ago--the Center for Curatorial Leadership. The web site links the origin of the program to two converging trends in the museum world-- one is a well-publicized shortage of museum directors, the other is the increasing business and fundraising responsibilities given to curators. There is also the increasing awareness of a struggle between two different kinds of museum directorship--the curator/director and the administrator/director. A quotation from Phillipe de Montebello on the Center's web site tells you most of what you need to know about this. I suspect that any analysis of successful museum directorship would show good and disastrous examples of both kinds... the trick may be in not investing too heavily in the dichotomy. I feel our mission is very similar to the Center's -- helping the people who run arts organizations learn more of the languages and practices of business management...
... though I still don't understand why they were visiting a hospital president!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Keeping Your Reports Happy
The NPQ article I referenced a few days ago--the one about the relative strengths of for-profit and nonprofit managers--would seem to suggest that nonprofit leaders are more empathetic managers than their counterparts, but this piece from Marshall Goldsmith from the Harvard Business Journal website is still worth reading.
Of course, this morning I was also reading Jim Collins' Good to Great -- part of my unsentimental education in the world of business literature -- where I came across his argument that motiviating employees is of much less importance than hiring the right "pre-motiviated" employees and getting them in the right jobs. Collins' second step to becoming a "Good To Great" organization is all about getting the wrong people "off the bus," getting the right people on the bus, and then getting those people in the right places before you decide where you want an organization to go. This is one of the steps that seems especially hard to translate into the nonprofit realm.
Most non-profits I know have issues with, well, not being able to fire people--to put it plainly. There's a kind of tacit agreement for many underperforming employees that as long as you show up and accept low pay and (sometimes) bad working conditions, you will never be fired. Perhaps the shortage of working capital or cash reserves (to cover the threat of a legal battle), the reliance on volunteer legal representation, the lack of training in HR issues contributes, maybe event the emphasis on mission as the top priority of the organization, contributes to this. I don't know if it's a non-profit thing, an arts thing, or just the nature of any organization... but I'd be interested to know if anyone's done research on the subject.
Of course, this morning I was also reading Jim Collins' Good to Great -- part of my unsentimental education in the world of business literature -- where I came across his argument that motiviating employees is of much less importance than hiring the right "pre-motiviated" employees and getting them in the right jobs. Collins' second step to becoming a "Good To Great" organization is all about getting the wrong people "off the bus," getting the right people on the bus, and then getting those people in the right places before you decide where you want an organization to go. This is one of the steps that seems especially hard to translate into the nonprofit realm.
Most non-profits I know have issues with, well, not being able to fire people--to put it plainly. There's a kind of tacit agreement for many underperforming employees that as long as you show up and accept low pay and (sometimes) bad working conditions, you will never be fired. Perhaps the shortage of working capital or cash reserves (to cover the threat of a legal battle), the reliance on volunteer legal representation, the lack of training in HR issues contributes, maybe event the emphasis on mission as the top priority of the organization, contributes to this. I don't know if it's a non-profit thing, an arts thing, or just the nature of any organization... but I'd be interested to know if anyone's done research on the subject.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Nonprofit vs. For Profit Leadership
The most recent Nonprofit Quarterly has published an article about a recent study comparing evaluations of nonprofit & for profit leaders that found nonprofit leaders led their for profit counterparts in nearly all categories of leadership. It's not terribly surprising that the TNQ would want to bring this news to its readers, but I think the interpretation of the results by Jim Collins sounds about right. Nonprofit leaders generally don't have the resources or authority to make unilateral, "executive" decisions, but instead rely on networks of influence and persuasion... Comparisons aside, it might be nice to make this sort of leadership analysis availalable to arts leaders here in Philadelphia.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fear of Taxes
This article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy talks about the small amount of taxes paid by non-profits for their unrelated (taxable) revenue operations. Short version: there are lots of ways to make profits unprofitable in the tax code.
It reminds me of a presentation I went to a few years ago about earned revenue opportunities for nonprofits, where a predictable debate over museum shops broke out--what merchandise was related to the organization's mission & what wasn't, etc. The IRS used to use museum shops as an example in their publications on the subject. When faced with a brace of questions about whether one kind of shop could sell a certain kind of product vs. another kind of shop & another kind of product, the presenter just threw up her hands and said, "Hey, worst case scenario, you pay tax. It's not a big deal. Businesses do it all the time." It reminded me that we often needlessly twist ourselves into all different kinds of shapes trying to avoid lines of business that might be subject to tax, when we can just build it into the model...
It reminds me of a presentation I went to a few years ago about earned revenue opportunities for nonprofits, where a predictable debate over museum shops broke out--what merchandise was related to the organization's mission & what wasn't, etc. The IRS used to use museum shops as an example in their publications on the subject. When faced with a brace of questions about whether one kind of shop could sell a certain kind of product vs. another kind of shop & another kind of product, the presenter just threw up her hands and said, "Hey, worst case scenario, you pay tax. It's not a big deal. Businesses do it all the time." It reminded me that we often needlessly twist ourselves into all different kinds of shapes trying to avoid lines of business that might be subject to tax, when we can just build it into the model...
Thursday, January 17, 2008
In the Impact Business
Were this a high school yearbook, I would say that one of my "pet peeves" is the abuse of the word "curate" and "curator." Perhaps it's because I once proudly had the title of curator, perhaps not... but it drives me a little crazy to hear the word used as a cooler synonym for "arranging," to hear about people "curating" their Ipod playlists, their buffet dinners, their sock drawers. It will not surprise you to hear that I dislike "impact" used as a verb, and that am brought to the brink of madness by its degenerate offspring "impactful."
Now that's out of my system. Here's something important.
Andrew Taylor, the Director of the Bolz Center for Arts Administration at in UW Madison's business school, writes a great blog for artsjournal.com called the "Artful Manager." The title's not so great, but it's well written and insightful and stays in front of the big questions and trends. [As long as I'm at it, consider this a plug for www.artsjournal.com and its daily email update of arts in the news. It's a shared habit here at PCMI--just started reading it a month ago and don't know what I'd do without it now.]
His most recent post, titled (wait for it!) "Curating impact through artists" talks about the new report by Alan Brown on new ways of measuring the impact of artistic performances on audiences. Taylor's blog post does a good job of spelling out some of the implications of the report. For those of us who think about ways of measuring the effectiveness and the impact of arts organizations, it's important work.
Now that's out of my system. Here's something important.
Andrew Taylor, the Director of the Bolz Center for Arts Administration at in UW Madison's business school, writes a great blog for artsjournal.com called the "Artful Manager." The title's not so great, but it's well written and insightful and stays in front of the big questions and trends. [As long as I'm at it, consider this a plug for www.artsjournal.com and its daily email update of arts in the news. It's a shared habit here at PCMI--just started reading it a month ago and don't know what I'd do without it now.]
His most recent post, titled (wait for it!) "Curating impact through artists" talks about the new report by Alan Brown on new ways of measuring the impact of artistic performances on audiences. Taylor's blog post does a good job of spelling out some of the implications of the report. For those of us who think about ways of measuring the effectiveness and the impact of arts organizations, it's important work.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
More Leadership Development advice
Brief, but to the point, a piece by Marshall Goldsmith on the Harvard Business Review website on the essential components of leadership programs.
Opening Your Mind to the world of Business Literature
To begin with a generalization: arts leaders tend to be skeptical about the value of business culture. A lot of us would consider the phrase "business culture" to be an oxymoron. I'm using it to refer to that vast sector of knowledge production in education & media & conferences, to the arcane language and value system, the network of identifications and affiliations, symbols and hierarchies, protocols and etiquette that constitute the business world.
A lot of people in non-profit arts organizations define themselves and the mission of their organizations in contrast, if not outright opposition, to that culture. A lot of us come out of the peculiar cultures of academia and the performing arts or fine arts, or some hybrid of these. These cultures think about values outside of material and monetary values. They tend to be anti-authoritarian. They encourage the development of the individual and his or her ideas, especially what is new, what speaks truth to power, what sheds light on the assumptions and blind spots of the dominant culture. I could go on.
but the one area arts and academia don't think very much about is leadership, teamwork, the behavior of people in organizations.
This is all a lot of armchair sociology bloviation meant as a kind of "working through" of ideas prepatory to a reading group I want to organize--business books for arts people. There is much to be learned from the Peter Druckers and Jim Collinses of this world, though we might not always see it.
which is not to say that arts leaders are in any way less capable, less smart, less prepared than their counterparts in for-profit industries. They are less cared for, and are able to spend less resources on training that allows them to see the broader field, the broader possibilities. Leading an arts non-profit is at *least* as complex and demanding as leading a similar-sized business. We know this. But all the more reason to read widely and find out what's going on over there that can be helpful to us here... more to come.
A lot of people in non-profit arts organizations define themselves and the mission of their organizations in contrast, if not outright opposition, to that culture. A lot of us come out of the peculiar cultures of academia and the performing arts or fine arts, or some hybrid of these. These cultures think about values outside of material and monetary values. They tend to be anti-authoritarian. They encourage the development of the individual and his or her ideas, especially what is new, what speaks truth to power, what sheds light on the assumptions and blind spots of the dominant culture. I could go on.
but the one area arts and academia don't think very much about is leadership, teamwork, the behavior of people in organizations.
This is all a lot of armchair sociology bloviation meant as a kind of "working through" of ideas prepatory to a reading group I want to organize--business books for arts people. There is much to be learned from the Peter Druckers and Jim Collinses of this world, though we might not always see it.
which is not to say that arts leaders are in any way less capable, less smart, less prepared than their counterparts in for-profit industries. They are less cared for, and are able to spend less resources on training that allows them to see the broader field, the broader possibilities. Leading an arts non-profit is at *least* as complex and demanding as leading a similar-sized business. We know this. But all the more reason to read widely and find out what's going on over there that can be helpful to us here... more to come.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Boston's Endangered Small Arts Groups
As a Bostonian by birth and Philadelphian by choice, I'm always interested in comparisons between these cities, which have so much in common but are also completely different. [The basic text on the subject is, of course, the late Digby Baltzell's Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia, which traced the divergent paths of these two siblings to their founding religions-the civic-minded, hierarchical, and scholarly Puritans generating political leaders and intellectuals; the family-minded, commercial, egalitarian Quakers generating businesses and private institutions. It's all in the first chapter, really.]
...but that's not what I'm writing about. The Chroncle of Philanthropy drew my attention to a story in the Boston Globe about a report from the Boston Foundation, that apparently argues that the city's proliferation of small, struggling arts organizations suggest that some of those groups begin to plan an "exit strategy." To protest this finding & to call attention to the need of small arts groups, some of these organizations are having a 'die-in.'
...but that's not what I'm writing about. The Chroncle of Philanthropy drew my attention to a story in the Boston Globe about a report from the Boston Foundation, that apparently argues that the city's proliferation of small, struggling arts organizations suggest that some of those groups begin to plan an "exit strategy." To protest this finding & to call attention to the need of small arts groups, some of these organizations are having a 'die-in.'
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
What does a live performance do to you?
Yesterday's posting of the Wolf Brown study (by Alan Brown and Jennifer Novak) about measuring the impact of performing arts on attendees has been sending ripples around the arts & culture blogosphere and email lists. I'm reading it now, but am already taken by a note on page 2 that serves as a kind of epigram:
With special thanks to Edward Pauly, The Wallace Foundation’s Director of Research and Evaluation, for provoking us to consider that even the most subjective constructs can be measured – if they can first be described.
With special thanks to Edward Pauly, The Wallace Foundation’s Director of Research and Evaluation, for provoking us to consider that even the most subjective constructs can be measured – if they can first be described.
Talk about yr leadership transitions...
The announcement of Phillipe de Montebello's upcoming retirement from the Metropolitan Museum of Art isn't shocking to anyone, apparently--certainly not to the NYT, which had thousands of words at the ready to drop into the paper today. It's time. But now, the interesting part. Mr. de Montebello has been held up as the quintessence of the American museum director -- for good reason -- for many years. A scholar, a curator, a "patron saint" of the museum with just enough energy, charisma, and business acumen to build the country's greatest arts board, expand the museum and its audience and its endowment dramatically while maintaining the highest programmatic standards. We're also reading every day about how the present generation of arts leaders, especially museum directors--who are especially scarce these days--will be replaced. I'll be interested to see how the search is conducted and how this transition is managed in this flagship institution--the Met has had plenty of time and plenty of resources to prepare for this moment--we'll see how it goes!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Clinton vs. Obama on the web
The Harvard Business Review online has a short article about the difference between the Clinton and Obama campaign websites that seems at least as relevant for non-profits as it is for for-profits. Big quote:
Why is engagement important? Well, the data on customers shows that the best measure of your brand is not satisfaction – but how many advocates you have. These advocates can sway buyers, or in the case of politics, voters. Firms like REI sports, who have deep involvement of members in their product design, service, and even instruction on use – understand this. The online retailers like Amazon and eBay utilize this natural propensity for involvement to provide everything from user-supplied customer service to new product/service design with eBay getting over sixty percent of its ideas for new products from customers.
The message keeps coming back that the business of a business, especially of a nonprofit business, is building relationships (w/advocates, members, evangelists)...
M
Why is engagement important? Well, the data on customers shows that the best measure of your brand is not satisfaction – but how many advocates you have. These advocates can sway buyers, or in the case of politics, voters. Firms like REI sports, who have deep involvement of members in their product design, service, and even instruction on use – understand this. The online retailers like Amazon and eBay utilize this natural propensity for involvement to provide everything from user-supplied customer service to new product/service design with eBay getting over sixty percent of its ideas for new products from customers.
The message keeps coming back that the business of a business, especially of a nonprofit business, is building relationships (w/advocates, members, evangelists)...
M
Monday, January 7, 2008
Museums of the Book
Having spent a long time in the rare book library business, I've been asked many times about what the future of rare books and manuscripts will be in the 21st century cyberworld of "myfaces" and "spacebooks" (another's coinage, and to be said with your best Grampa Simpson impression). The future looks like this. As books and handwritten documents become less a part of our lives, they acquire even more aura and make for even more potent museum fodder. I always think of what happened to painting after the invention of photography as an analogy....
Waiting for GOS
It took a few years of fundraising for me to see the dangers of project-based grantmaking. If a donor will give you $50,000 to create a puppet show, you start to dream of felt and glue guns, even if it has nothing to do with your mission or strategy. This sort of funding seldom includes money for salaries or the electric bill, so while the initial check will help with short-term cash flow, those funds usually flow right out of the organization & into the project. Most arts organizations are so strapped for cash that they're vulnerable to taking on projects that drain resources and pull them away from their missions. On the other side, foundations and individual donors rightfully want to see results from their giving, and operations giving seems to be just throwing more cash into a bottomless pit. Internally, it's easy for fundraisers and administrators to become so enamored of an opportunity for a gift or a grant that they make promises that the organization' s program staff can't or simply don't want to keep. All non-profits need to keep this balance, but few do it successfully.
The grantmaking community is well aware of these problems, which have been around for a very long time and have no clear solution, at least not yet. One of the best places to look for an overview is this site, part of the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations main site. Their 2007 publication on general operating grants is linked here--it's been an important text in the debate as you can tell from this article in this past Sunday's NYT.
PCMI specializes in capacity-building grants & programs--sort of a middle ground between program-specific grants and general operating. A PCMI grant might pay for a few years of a salary for a new position in marketing or development or administration, or it might help pay for a study or work with a consultant about how an organization would run better--only hoping to enhance the core business of the groups that work with us. But we're always curious about better ways to help...
The grantmaking community is well aware of these problems, which have been around for a very long time and have no clear solution, at least not yet. One of the best places to look for an overview is this site, part of the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations main site. Their 2007 publication on general operating grants is linked here--it's been an important text in the debate as you can tell from this article in this past Sunday's NYT.
PCMI specializes in capacity-building grants & programs--sort of a middle ground between program-specific grants and general operating. A PCMI grant might pay for a few years of a salary for a new position in marketing or development or administration, or it might help pay for a study or work with a consultant about how an organization would run better--only hoping to enhance the core business of the groups that work with us. But we're always curious about better ways to help...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)