Editor’s note:  As part of our online discussion around The Summit at Sundance, we have invited participants in The Chief Executive Program to frame each of our problems to solve. Here, Basma El Husseiny takes on the problem: Maximize the cultural field’s value in the eyes of the public/society.

While articulating the value of what arts organizations offer to society in specific quantitative terms is necessary and important, most people will not be able to see the connection between these terms and the change they would like to happen to their lives. If an arts organization is seeking support and recognition from a large segment of society, then the articulation of its mission and objectives has to be meaningful to this segment, and preferably to society as a whole.

The problem may not be in the articulation, it may be in the credo of the organization itself.  In many cases, arts organizations are not aware of the role they can play in the society, yet are dissatisfied that the society sees them as dispensable.   A theatre company that is suffering from shrinking audiences and reduced public or donor funding would probably attribute this to a problem in communicating their value, but in many cases the problem would be that the value is diminishing, or that they have become less aware of their value.

In societies where social and political changes are high on the public agenda, the arts offer two necessary tools to enact change: imagination and expression.  There, the value of arts organizations is estimated against how well and effective these tools are shared and used in the society.  For me, this is the intrinsic value of the arts; their ability to empower people through imagination and expression.  The articulation of the value of arts organizations in such contexts should certainly go beyond the numeric and quantitative.  In the Arab region, the ongoing volatile change process is a real challenge for arts organizations as the needs for their work and services is rising to a level they can hardly meet.  The challenge is not only how to be able to cope with these demands but is also, and more importantly, how they can, in this hectic rush to organize events and produce new work, still maintain reasonable artistic standards.

In advanced societies, the arts field is totally professionalized.  This of course has many advantages, but one of the big disadvantages is the absence of the spirit of activism; the belief that the arts can and should change what needs to be changed in the society: injustice, oppression, discrimination, destruction of the natural environment, etc.  How can this be applied to a major museum in New York, London or Paris?  I don’t really know but my simple and superficial observation is that most of these big arts organizations are not engaged in civic discourses about social issues and are therefore unaware of the value they could provide.

More thoughts from the field

“As leaders working in the arts and cultural field, we need to shift the frame from “Please value the work we do” to “Our organization builds the economy, builds respectful cities and neighborhoods, and educates the future workforce of our community.” Align this work with others who care about these issues. Find opportunities to collaborate across sectors. You will know success when others begin delivering your message.”

— Danielle Brazell (Executive Director, Arts for LA)

“Value is, of course, in the eyes and pocketbooks of the beholder. For example, I find the work of intelligent film critics to be highly valuable: I learn about the context of a film, its relationship to film history or literature, the fine moments of cinematography in the film, what to look for, etc. But others care no more than to have a score number–a meaningless quantification–from critics.

The value of art or culture has been quantified in more and in less meaningful ways. In our own case the experts find we generate something like 12 Million USD to our community. Sounds good to me, until you see that they impute overnight stays in our town as coming from our events/screenings. Not likely. Maybe so in center city, but doubtful in the suburbs. So what? I can brag about our economic value.

But the real value is in quality of life, in the enrichment our patrons experience by coming to thoughtful films, film courses, discussion groups. They are smarter and feel better afterwards. They have something to talk about. And have fun in the process.

The foundations/governments who demand quantification of film’s value may like the fact that 5 new businesses and restaurants have opened near us in the past year. But that is a derivative value, even though it is part of our mission statement. I don’t get up in the morning eager to add to the economic life of the community; rather, eager to bring more interesting films to our neighborhood.”

— Juliet Goodfriend (President, Bryn Mawr Film Institute)

How would you solve this problem? Add your ideas below!

Editor’s note: As part of our blog event for The Summit at Sundance, we have invited participants in The Chief Executive Program to frame each of our problems to solve. Here, John Wetenhall poses a series of questions for thinking about the problem: Engage users/customers/stakeholders as true collaborators in shaping an institution’s agenda.

Beyond any fiscal challenges that cultural organizations may face, the core of what we do involves a meaningful, resonant and personal relationship with every human being who engages with our form of art.  We enrich lives, strengthen communities and make the world a better place – on a person by person basis.  This personal relationship has energy, intellect and emotion.  It brings people together and can build bridges between cultures.  It broadens our world.  It carries the past to our present and helps to shape the future.  It refines our values and so brings extraordinary value to all.

The challenge of audience engagement is not a problem, then, but an opportunity.

Culture in a Changing World

“The last thing we want is to hold a growing segment of a dying market…”

We understand demographic trends and appreciate the diversity of our potential audiences.  We also know that technology, the internet and the accelerated speed of everyday life have changed people’s expectations.  People are at once local residents and citizens of a global world.  Yet even as individuals may feel their lives complicate while societies fragment, at our best, our cultural offerings can touch people’s souls and connect us all through our core humanity. 

Are our core audiences aging?  Are baby boomers less likely to participate in cultural offerings than the WWII generation?  Are younger people coming to our venues in sufficient numbers to replace them?

Do growing diverse populations bring different expectations?  What are they?  What must we do to meet them?

Do people raised in the digital age have fundamentally different expectations than those whose education came primarily from books?  Must we adapt for them?  If so, how?

Presenting To Audiences

We possess extraordinary content about our art forms and exhibitions.  What our curators, artistic directors, performers and educators know far exceeds the confines of a 100-word label or a page in the playbook.  We possess enthralling stories that can ignite the curiosity of all kinds of people from gloriously different backgrounds.  But how do we tell them?  Who do we reach?

Are our internal structures and professional priorities aligned with the expectations of our audiences?  Do “insider” dialogues with scholars, peers, critics or “the field” distance us from the general public that comes to our facilities?  Do “insider” priorities leave visitors feeling inadequate, ill-informed or dumb?  If so, what actions must we take?

By what means do we communicate what we know to our audiences?   Are the old ways good enough? Or does a digital age require new delivery systems for engagement?

Must we change what we show or how we show it?  Or neither?  Or both?

Engaging With Audiences

The digital age has empowered individuals and created unprecedented expectations for active participation, including “self-curation” of experience.  We understand that the privileged place of cultural institutions in the civic fabric is becoming ever-more blurred – especially in the public eye – as education and entertainment options proliferate.  What is the role of individuals and their communities in shaping the substance of what we offer?

To what extent has the role of audience members changed?  Do people wish to expand their roles from witness to participant?  If so, how must we change their cultural experience?

How do cultural organizations listen?  Is this really about focus groups and surveys, or is the dialogue more engaged, profound and simultaneous?  How ready are the creators of our content willing to adapt?  How do we establish a vibrant feedback loop?

Is there a necessary sequence between what we offer and what audiences/visitors wish to “curate” themselves?  Is “self-expression” enough, or must experiencing our cultural offerings transform such expression?  How do we mediate the experience?  Must we?

Who speaks for the community?  Politicians? Donors? Corporate leaders? Citizen groups? Board members?  Survey Monkey?  If we embrace community involvement as a driver of culture, do we expose our content to manipulation by special interests or the whimsies of fads and fashion?  Do we self-censor?

How do we embrace both the aspirations of our communities and the integrity of the individual artist?

Will engaging audiences and communities in these ways give them a greater stake in our organizations, or do we need to think beyond programmatic concerns?

Strategies for Success

Decisions must be made.

If we wish to transform the audience experience, do we do so

Incrementally, via many small actions?

OR

Systemically, through game-changing organizational or field-wide transformations?

Can groups of us work together to seek new ways to engage audiences?  Can we speed up innovation by sharing a common challenge to test new approaches simultaneously?  How do we share winning strategies going forward?

What would you do?  What works?  Give examples and identify winning strategies for success.

More thoughts from the field

“Many of our mission statements are mostly or entirely focused on the art that is the medium of our work. Such artcentricity, without consideration of art’s role in people’s lives, gets in the way of connecting with our communities and hinders sustainability.

Unfortunately, some think that “art as service” demands a radical dismantling of the arts enterprise. Any work that proceeds from a self-understanding of responsibility in the community, anything to the right of artcentric, is good (note Yo-Yo Ma’s recent Kennedy Center lecture “Art for Life’s Sake”).

In this middle ground the art grows out of or is a response to an existing relationship. This does not mean that we simply “give them what they want.” Giving people what they need rather than what they want can be a form of deep respect. But beware, if we are simply giving them what WE want to give, that is profound disrespect, and we cannot know what they need if we do not have relationships with them, if we do not know them.

Properly conceived, a mission serves as a life raft in the sea of troubles and the “shiny object ” temptations of artcentric goals. It should be informed by the realities of the market in which the organization exists and not simply the desires of the founders, artistic director, or the board. There are a lot of “generic” arts organizations–the symphony, theatre, dance company, or museum–that could be in any city in the country (or world). One reason they struggle is their lack of connection to a place. A community-focused mission is one way for an arts organization to differentiate itself from the crowd and, perhaps, make it stand out artistically and be more sustainable.”

 — Doug Borwick (Engaging Matters)

How would you solve this problem? Add your ideas below!

photo: Keith Winsten

Editor’s note: As part of our blog event for The Summit at Sundance, we have invited participants in The Chief Executive Program to frame each of our problems to solve. Here, Keith Winsten takes on the problem: Engage users/customers/stakeholders as true collaborators in shaping an institution’s agenda.

Across many types of experiences, from retail to food to leisure, consumers are demanding more and more customization.  And the rise of smart phones and other handheld digital media devices have made this customization available in real time. Some members of the arts and cultural community have embraced this trend by inviting community members to become real collaborators in shaping both their short-term experiences and the long-term agendas of their institutions. This seems to be especially true for art and other museums that traditionally offered passive experiences.  I’m intrigued by how this approach might play out at other arts and cultural institutions – especially in allowing guests to shape the nature of their visit/interaction.

For example, institutions with living collections have always had the advantage/challenge that the guest experience changes hourly based on the fact that the collection is by nature interactive.  At my zoo, guests spend more time engaged and have a vastly better experience when the animals are active and available and weather is pleasant (we have a Maslow hierarchy of needs issues that climate controlled facilities don’t).  Knowing this, zoos and aquariums have been rapidly innovating in terms of creating humane, respectful animal interactions.  We also know that the public has a fascination with what goes on behind-the-scenes, so premium programs, where guests pay top dollars to become a “trainer for a day” or to pet a rhino, have become an important part of the mix.  But these “special” experiences are still authored by the institutions not the guest.  For animal safety reasons, we feel limited with what we can let the guests create.  We are equally attached to our landscape/setting. When living things are concerned, the exhibit and surrounding landscape isn’t a blank space that we can open up to the public to control or an artist in residence to reconfigure.  The one exception is a new generation of interactive children’s play spaces where there are gardens, construction zones or mock exhibits where kids can create anew.  These spaces are important additions to a zoo, aquarium or botanical garden but they aren’t the defining experiences and in fact can be easily reproduced at other types of institutions like children’s museums.

And then what about the performing arts?  We learned about the American Repertory Theatre where the Donkey Show surrounds the audience or their five-story “Sleep No More” experience in NYC where the audience explores the setting at their own pace (I brought both my older kids and my father) and everyone sees different pieces of the show. By choosing our own route, we make choices that affect our experience but don’t actually affect the performance.  So is Diane Paulus really engaging the audience as a co-collaborator or just giving that impression like the premium programs at the Zoo, where the guest feels special but is really interchangeable?

And finally, what is the ROI for this approach.  Does the institution hold a more sacred place in the hearts of its co-conspirators?  Does it become more central to a community when it cedes some control?  And does the process of embracing some of the community alienate others who are looking for a more traditional experience?

More thoughts from the field

“At the Arts & Science Council of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, we work closely with a wide range of arts and cultural organizations across our community, providing both funding and capacity-building support to encourage creative audience development, collaboration and community engagement strategies. One of my favorite local examples of putting an audience-driven mindset into action comes from Carolina Actors Studio Theatre (CAST) – long known for their experiential approach to engaging patrons – who have extended this philosophy to include even their show selection. Here’s how it works: anyone from a volunteer, to a board member, to a single ticket buyer can propose a piece for the coming season, and as ideas come in, director Michael Simmons responds with a simple questionnaire. If all five questions can be answered in the affirmative, the company seriously considers the show. Imagine the delight when YOUR show makes the cut, and the resulting spike in your level of engagement with the organization. Your voice has been heard, and that can make all the difference. I’d love to see even more arts organizations stretching their audience-centric muscles, and in ways that so clearly align with their own core mission and program goals.”

 — Katherine Mooring (Vice President, Cultural & Community Investment, Arts & Science Council)

How would you solve this problem? Add your ideas below!

Editor’s note: As part of our blog event for The Summit at Sundance, we have invited participants in The Chief Executive Program to frame each of our problems to solve. Here, Jean McLaughlin takes on the problem: Create the 21st century board.

What would an ideal 21^st century board look like? And, how might board members best add value? These are the questions I have been pondering for the past few days.

In many ways I marvel at the productive, supportive, responsible and enthusiastic nature of the boards I have worked with. I know this harmony, successful relationship building and mutual respect doesn’t happen without consideration and effort. It is the result of careful selection, role clarity, nurturing, assignments that fit skills and interests, thanking and a genuine concern for making the best use of everyone’s time. Good problem-solving in meetings results from adequate preparation and research as well as from trust built upon time spent together in creative and social retreat.

At Penland School of Crafts we have an active Committee on Trustees that looks annually at governance, leadership, board assessment as a whole and individually, strategic thinking, former trustee engagement, etc., in addition to the nomination of new trustees and succession planning for strong board leadership. Aside from the skills we need, like good financial planning, investment oversight, legal guidance, physical plant/land management expertise and a deep commitment to education and the arts, other criteria for board membership become most essential—being able to listen, “play well with others” and to place the good of the whole above personal interest. Members have stepped down from the board when the spirit of participation lost its collegial good will.

We have governing responsibility documents, orientation session, lists of ways that trustees can be best engaged, committees that enable closer-to-the-ground work on behalf of the organization, board giving standards—all of which helps us to operate smoothly. Yet these mechanics alone could not yield the positive results we feel. Earnestness, humor, respect, acknowledgement of special efforts, joy, celebration of successes and kudos for risks taken can be infectious and inspiring. Taking the lead and following the lead as appropriate, making suggestions and embracing directions chosen, agreeing to disagree, committing to the success of the organization—these are essential qualities of an ideal board.

Years ago in my state agency work, we advocated to have artists at every decision-making table. One-third of Penland’s trustees are artists, and their contributions of art are valued equally to cash contributions. Knowledge and skill is respected across the board with learning and teaching crossing unexpected boundaries. Diversity of race, gender, sexual orientation, geography and age are carefully balanced to reflect our culture and aspirations.

What do I see as needed that we don’t yet have? A new challenge before us is advocating for the non-profit sector among legislators and those who elected them–people who do not understand the roles played and contributions made by the non-profit sector in our society and who have the power and the will to alter the sector. We have articulated the educational, job and economic impact of the arts for the past few decades, and now we find ourselves having to explain why we exist and how we differ from the for-profit sector. It seems more important than ever to have leadership positioned to affect public policy changes, the fundamental decisions being made that can adversely alter the services we provide. Rather than having well-informed non-partisan leadership, it seems important to have partisan leadership that models collaborative work for the good of community/society.

My primary responsibility as ED is to the mission–to the organization’s financial and programmatic sustainability. It is also to direct the forward momentum of the organization—to set goals that are both a stretch and achievable–to plan effectively, guide, coach, question, advise, re-direct, respond, collaborate, support, remind, encourage and cheerfully cajole—to work with the board and through the staff.

More thoughts from the field

“An enduring nonprofit governance challenge: educating and motivating individual directors to dedicate time, allocate resources and thoughtfully experiment towards moving their organizations beyond the status quo and the pursuit of incremental changes. Meaningfully pursuing the representation, education and engagement of diverse populations (particularly younger generations) will be critical in meeting such challenge.”

— Gene Takagi (NEO Law Group)

“The cultural economy is more dynamic, competitive, and fast-paced than ever.  The traditional way of handling strategic planning complete with retreats, standing committees, and extensive research and surveys, feels too slow and cumbersome in this new landscape.   How should nonprofit leaders approach strategy work in this climate?  I ask myself:  is it okay for the board to play less of a role?  Or how can I get board and stakeholder buy-in and still move quickly and make bold choices. ”

— Eve Bridburg (Founder and Executive Director, Grub Street)

“Creating a board that is committed to the museum’s mission; one that is engaged and generous; bridges a generation of more mature members with experience on local and/or national non-profit boards (preferably the cultural/museum sector), and younger members, who are participants in the currents that are shaping and transforming our community. Our board is intentionally developing youth leadership in recognition of the audiences— communities– our museum is, can, and will serve. We are shaping a board that is nimble in face of the dynamism of our times, yet sound enough to govern during challenging and dynamic times. Building a board that represents the diversity of our communities—both geographic and online– with a diversity of skills and interests needed to help advance the mission and vision of the institution. We are trying to ensure that there are clear expectations of board members, its committees—standing and ad hoc—and that of the director and that there is accountability at all levels. ”

— Cathy Leff (Director, The Wolfsonian-Florida International University)

“As Bill Eddins articulated in his recent blog post on the ongoing strike at the Minnesota Orchestra, “If It’s Broke, Don’t Fix It,” a key problem is lack of involvement or representation of key stakeholders of organizations in the governance process. Another would appear to be the enormous difficulty of intervening when a board is running afoul of its purpose. We have spent decades building exclusionary, professional, hierarchical institutions; perhaps it’s time to start moving towards a “cooperative infrastructure” model (a term borrowed from Clay Shirky in his TED Talk “Institutions vs. Collaboration“)  and sharing control of our institutions with artists, community members, and other stakeholders.”

— Diane Ragsdale (Jumper)

How would you solve this problem? Add your ideas below!

Editor’s note:  As part of our online discussion around The Summit at Sundance, we have invited participants in The Chief Executive Program to frame each of our problems to solve. Here, Marc Vogl takes on the problem: Develop employees and organizational systems that will transform our organizations and the field.

“To expect the unexpected,” said Oscar Wilde, “shows a thoroughly modern intellect.”

And yet, it is so much easier said than done. If anticipating plot twists in the third act of a play is the learned skill of the experienced theater-goer, what then is the corollary skill of the experienced arts leader?  It’s not just to anticipate the changes that will throw your best laid plans for a loop, but to lead an organization with the resilience, resourcefulness and flexibility to roll with that change.

And those changes are everywhere and have epic consequences for artists and arts organizations.

As recently as 40 years ago racial and ethnic minorities comprised 13% of the US population, 40 years from now non-Hispanic whites will be a minority.  As the Association for American Museums observed in their recent study on demographic implications for their field, “This analysis paints a troubling picture of the “probable future”—a future in which, if trends continue in the current grooves, museum audiences are radically less diverse than the American public, and museums serve an ever- shrinking fragment of society.”

The fact that there are 25 million fewer Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1976) than there are Boomers has implications for arts organizations seeking new middle-agers to fill the halls and for talent to step up and fill leadership positions in these institutions too.  Like Boomers, the Millennials (born 1977-1994) comprise about 25% of the total population and understanding how they learn, work, engage with art and create and share culture is essential to the sector’s future too.

The accelerating pace of technological change can affect everything from how stories are told and how works of art are produced and distributed to how a patron learns about an event, purchases their ticket, is primed for an artistic experience, engages with it on-site or on-line and the quality of the relationship they have with an organization once the curtain comes down.

But technological advances are also creating new and efficient ways for non profits to be more transparent and inclusive in their decision making and to maximize the precious time offered to them by Board Members and volunteers, as Beth Kanter and Allison Fine describe in The Networked Nonprofit.  Kanter as well as Stanford scholar and self-described “philanthropy wonk” Lucy Bernholz are pressing the case that technology and the converging interests of government, funders and non-profits are now resulting in masses of data becoming available to social change organizations, enabling those who embrace it to understand their audiences, peers, geographies, funders and most crucially themselves in finer detail than ever before.

Philanthropically, the game changing innovations have sprung up around crowd-funding and there are now nearly 200 individual donation platforms.  Kickstarter alone rounded up $320 million in pledges in 2012 (up from $100 million in 2011 and $27 million in 2010). If Kickstarter were a private foundation it would be in the top 15 based on total funds disbursed, ahead of the Kellogg, Mellon, and MacArthur Foundations.

Given so many thunderous changes – in demography, technology, philanthropy and shifts in social norms and consumer behavior – doubling down on what has served the arts and culture sector well in the past seems to be, as the ecologist C.S. Holling would say, a “maladaptive” strategy.

If the field as a whole, and organizations in particular have a bright future it will be because we successfully developed employees and organizational systems capable not just of tweaks and refinements, but major transformation.

It will be because we have apprehended the myriad and swirling forces of change around, and within, our organizations and communities and adjusted.

In his book The Age of the Unthinkable, Joshua Cooper Ramo describes the British philosopher Isiah Berlin’s distillation of the two types of thinkers in the world: “hedgehogs, who know one big thing, and foxes, who dart from idea to idea.”

Foxes privilege curiosity over accuracy; they are more skeptical of history and more comfortable updating their plan.

So, can we in the arts sector be ever more curious? Ever more open to change and, even, a little more foxy?
 

More thoughts from the field

 
“The workforce of the future will be different and we can predict some of what will happen based on current information.

• Organizing one’s work around multiple allegiances and alliances is energizing to individuals; future employees of cultural nonprofits may be unwilling to accept the 120% singular commitment that many organizations today expect.
• People want to be themselves at work, to create congruence across their interests and lifestyle choices. This will require employers to create flexible systems in which work can get done in non-traditional times, places, and spaces.
• Employees today demand transparent, inclusive management structures. It is increasingly difficult (and counter-productive) to barricade information within a management fortress. Forward-facing management shares information freely and benefits from reciprocity of sharing by employees.

Cultural nonprofits provide a platform for engaged, meaningful work. Attracting key talent to the work will require new, more flexible work arrangements. By understanding what’s needed in the new workforce environment, cultural nonprofits can successfully compete against employers whose jobs may be higher-paying but whose work has fewer psychic and community benefits.”

— Sarah Lutman (Principal, Lutman & Associates)

“Employee Development needs to be a focus for any organization, no matter their industry, size or annual revenue.  We are all in a war for talent, and need to find ways to support, develop and recognize your employees, even the smallest things can make a difference.  This is extremely important with the Gen Y employees and those fresh out of school. If you are able to adapt to the changing climate, strategies and employee needs, your company will have higher employee…and customer…engagement!” 

— Karen Weeks (Manager, Learning & Development, Yodle;
Writer, Speaker and Consultant, Amplify)

How would you solve this problem? Add your ideas below!
 

Editor’s note: Over the next two weeks, we’ll feature posts around the final convening of our Chief Executive Program, The Summit at Sundance. We invite you to participate in an online discussion of four major issues facing the cultural field. In this post, Dallas Shelby introduces the last of the problem statements.

Why do the arts matter? Why does creativity matter? Why do you matter? What value do we create? We should all be able to answer these questions, and the easier it we can make it to do so the better off we will be.  We may be comfortable making the case for the value our organizations create, but the public’s perception of the cultural field is the tide on which that value rises and falls.

Problem to solve:  Maximize the cultural field’s value in the eyes of the public/society.

If we think of public perception as the ocean upon which our organizational value floats (see the illustration above), then as the perceived value of the field increases, so does our organizational value. It is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Global Warming aside, how do you raise the ocean level?

Public perception is a tricky thing but affecting it requires effort in at least one of two paths: talking about your value and showing your value (i.e., being valuable). The latter, while certainly not easy, is relatively straightforward. Being valuable as a field comes from the individual and collective actions taken by organizations and leaders. It’s the sum of all value. In terms of the illustration above, think of the water displacement from the weight of the boats raising the ocean level.

Measuring value.

Talking about value is a bit more difficult, particularly when talking about the value derived from the entire field. It stands to reason, though, that it should start with some understanding of what that value is. We’ve all heard and read the cases for the instrumental and the intrinsic arguments for the value we create. We live in a world obsessed with numbers. Finding meaningful (pun not intended) metrics of the field’s value can help. This too is well-worn territory and the answers are not easy.

Categories help.

Dan and Chip Heath, in their book “Made to Stick,” talk about how to craft stories that stick. Their first tenant is to keep it simple. The problem, of course, is that the value we deliver is often complex and not easy to rattle off in a simple statement. In an effort to simplify our messages we rely on existing schemas or categories. They help bridge the gaps of understanding or even empathy. I might not value what your organization does but I might value “the Arts.”

Categories limit.

If you look at the illustration again you will notice the dotted line of demarcation separating arts and culture from creativity. Think about your stakeholders, your community – do they know when they are crossing this line? Do they care? While it might be a handy shortcut to use categories to help talk about our value, they can backfire. (I might actually care about what you do but do not particularly care about “the Arts” or, worse yet, I might think “the Arts” are too stuffy.)

Regardless of the course – action or words, cultural field or creativity – if we are looking to truly create a significant wave of value we must work together. How do you define the value of the field… not just your individual organization’s value? What can you measure? What can you share? How can we work to raise the tide?

Editor’s note: Over the next two weeks, we’ll feature posts around the final convening of our Chief Executive Program, The Summit at Sundance. We invite you to participate in an online discussion of four major issues facing the cultural field. In this post, Theresa Remick introduces the third problem statement.

Problem to solve: Engage users/customers/stakeholders as true collaborators in shaping an institution’s agenda.

Customers are shifting from passive consumers to active collaborators, and many desire experiences designed for and with them. Increasingly arts and culture organizations are seeking to be audience-driven by inviting customers into their process. We look to crowdsourcing as a means to achieve this type of engagement, and there’s certainly no shortage of organizations involving their customers in program design. Much emphasis has been placed on participatory experiences, and these are by no means without value.

How often does this engagement extend beyond audience development initiatives or one-off programs? Are we asking our customers what they want simply to inform programming decisions that will put butts in seats, or so our organizations can become more representative of the communities we serve?

Bringing users into our organizations should not happen only as a response to changing consumer preferences and habits. Nonprofit organizations receive tax-exempt status based on the promise that we will meet a need not being served by government or the private sector. Are we really delivering on that promise? Without a deeply engaged and mutually trusting relationship with our communities, how can we possibly know what needs aren’t being met? And, given that our mandate is derived from the interests of a variety of stakeholders, shouldn’t the entire organization – from mission and vision to programs and practices – reflect, and be inspired by, the community we’ve chosen to serve?

At the Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History, Creative Community Committee (C3) meetings bring members of the local community together to brainstorm programming ideas. To do so, C3 members consider the needs of the museum’s constituents and how those needs might be served through community programs. Keeping in mind the MAH’s goals for community programs, they use a honeycomb framework to identify needs, collaborators and projects that would help meet each need.

By engaging a diverse group representative of its community, the museum can make better choices about how to serve Santa Cruz in a relevant and meaningful way. And while the MAH has used this process to inform program design, C3 meetings also give stakeholders a more prominent voice in the organization as a whole. The honeycomb framework could easily be adapted to help an organization think about its community, and about how that community can inform its overall agenda.

What will you do to make stakeholders the cornerstone around which your institution’s agenda is built?

Editor’s note: Over the next two weeks, we’ll feature posts around the final convening of our Chief Executive Program, The Summit at Sundance. We invite you to participate in an online discussion of four major issues facing the cultural field. In this post, Alorie Clark introduces the second problem statement.

Governance is a certainly a hot topic for the nonprofit sector. Many organizations are finding that the traditional governance model isn’t working so well, sometimes leading to more stress than success. When considering all that affects and contributes to the success of a nonprofit board, how does an organization achieve effective governance?

Problem to solve: Create the 21^st century board.

Within the conversation of nonprofit governance, there are typically four main areas of consideration:

1. Board engagement: How much should the board be involved in operations? How often should the board meet? What should be reported at the meetings? Most executives hope to report enough to their board to keep them engaged and interested in the work of the organization, but not so much where they inhibit the executive’s ability to work effectively and with authority. This conflict can sometimes leave board members uninformed, uninterested and bored. In Governance as Leadership, Richard Chait suggests reframing their duties as a way to keep them engaged, using three governance modes: fiduciary, strategic and generative.
2. Fundraising is also a big issue in nonprofit governance. Should a board be required to fundraise? Many boards have a “give or get” policy. But some organizations are struggling with how well this works. Should all board members have the same fundraising requirement? How does this limit the pool for potential board members?
3. Roles and Functions: The issues of engagement and fundraising can be addressed once a board becomes clear about its function in relation to the organization, and the role it aims to serve. What size board does your organization need? Should all board members have a governing or fundraising responsibility? How can the expertise on the board be maximized? Are members serving in roles that are interesting to them?   Michael Klausner & Jonathan Small suggest “Failing to Govern?” (SSIR, 2005) that all board members should not be asked or expected to perform the same roles, suggesting instead a “Bifurcated Board.”
4. Diversity: Once a board clarifies its function and members’ roles, it can determine where they are lacking in terms of membership, and who it needs to help further the mission of the organization. A board should also assess if the community they are serving is reflected on their board. Diversity will look different for each board, and each organization should determine what role diversity should play in its governance. Is it adding someone of a different race? A different background? Or neighboring community?

How would you address these aspects of governance?  Next week, leaders from The Chief Executive program will investigate what will make take governance to the next level in the 21^st century, and will share their thoughts here on Field Notes. We invite you to join the conversation.

In the 21^st century, leaders seeking to transform their organizations and (more importantly) the field will need to be more nimble and less risk-averse. To succeed, this will require at least as much of a change in organizational culture as in organizational design and financial resources. We are right to trumpet the arts and culture field as a wellspring of innovation (R&D for the larger creative sector, inter alia) but must acknowledge that these virtues are hampered by our risk aversion (1, 2), a most powerful foil for innovation. At our best, we reach new heights of excellence, agitate for change and create and concoct amazing objects and experiences. Would that this extended to the systems and structures we’ve erected over the past fifty years or more! New models suggest possible alternatives, if not easy answers. Leaders and organizations that will be able to truly effect transformative change are those that have made themselves relevant, even indispensable, to their communities.

So, how do we identify talent best suited to meeting these challenges? How do we attract and retain them? How do we design organizations up to these challenges?

How do you incorporate feedback from audiences, donors and other stakeholders to design a season, exhibit or service? This is a common question among cultural organizations striving to become more relevant and inclusive, and NAS is right there with them.

Throughout The Chief Executive Program, we heard from leaders that they desired the time work together to find solutions to their toughest challenges. We knew that we wanted The Summit at Sundance to be the place for participants to do just that. Our task was to figure out the “how” – How do you take the challenges faced by leaders representing 100 organizations and boil them down to four problems to solve? How would we ensure everyone had a stake in these conversations, and that they weren’t specific to one leader or discipline? How would we ensure that these conversations were productive? How would we ensure everyone was heard, but avoid having “too many cooks in the kitchen?” My colleague Sunny shared yesterday about the process we designed to tackle the question of productivity and today, I’d like to talk about how we arrived at the four issues we’ll be exploring over the coming weeks.

After some careful thought about our objectives and the evaluation of many ideas about how to bring chief executives into the design process, we decided that the best way to get an all-encompassing picture of the challenges faced by the leaders in our program would be to create a mind map – a graphical representation of the issues most important to the cohort. This map would enable us to find the major interest points and see how the interests of these leaders fit together. It was our hope that, by understanding these issues in relation to one another, we could design an event that would be valuable and relevant to our entire Chief Executive Program cohort.

The information we gleaned from this process gave us a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the issues faced by these leaders. This understanding not only allowed us to have more productive and informed discussions around program design, but it helped leaders better understand each other and identify possible connections. In building the mind map, we realized that this was a tool we could employ for future programs. We also feel that organizations of all sizes and purposes could use this low-cost process to gather valuable insights that will help them better understand stakeholders.

How did we do it? The process of gathering information and creating the mind map involved opening a dialogue, analyzing what we heard and using what we learned to design one of the key elements to this convening: four problems to solve. Here are the steps:

Talk to your community.
The first step was simple. We asked leaders to share with us the issues they most wanted to discuss during The Summit at Sundance. In this activity, which required minimal time investment (something very important to this group), each leader provided up to four issues, with a title and a few sentences describing the issue. We think having this information will be useful not only for planning Sundance, but also in helping us better serve these leaders (and others) in the future.

Explore their ideas.
Our next step was to get our nerd on. Our work has taught us that an issue can be best addressed by investigating the root causes. So, we got nice and friendly with the issues, looking for the core problems in each statement, as well as additional themes and issues to which each statement could be related. We examined and debated the issues, making sure we had properly classified each one. We ended up with several “nodes” that helped us see which issue areas were most important to this group.

Organize the ideas.
We then took this data and used it to create the mind map, using each node as the central point to connect a range of ideas related to that issue area. While time consuming, this part of the process gave us another opportunity to become familiar with the issues most important to our executives – something that I think will be instrumental in making The Summit at Sundance a valuable and productive experience.

Explore the complete mind map »

Ask for feedback.
We sent the map to our executives so that they could get a clear look at all of the issues submitted by their colleagues, but also to give them a chance to let us know if we got things right and to submit additional ideas or thoughts inspired by the map.

Take action.
After incorporating the feedback we received, we were able to identify four areas that we thought would be best suited for productive discussions at our convening. From here, we explored the issue statements represented by each area, and developed four problems to solve. These problems are designed to be broad enough that each leader can find them relevant to their work, but they also ask specific questions that prompt leaders to develop actionable ideas.

Starting tomorrow, we will preview our four problems to solve and provide some background to help you start thinking about the issues leaders will discuss at Sundance, and that we hope you’ll discuss with us here at Field Notes.

I think the applications of this relatively simple way to gather feedback could be quite vast. For example, I can envision performing arts organizations soliciting feedback to help influence their season planning. The point wouldn’t be to have audiences tell you what to program (we hear all the time that what customers say they want or need isn’t always accurate), but to analyze the themes and interests represented in the feedback they give, then use your expertise to provide a season that is exciting and engaging. Digging into audience suggestions might help you think of repertoire with similar attributes that suits your mission and vision, but is also relevant to a large group of stakeholders. How would you use this process to influence your work?