I have appreciated the many comments that my first blog engendered.  My initial outline for future postings included “ranting” a bit about the systemic issues that make the standard NFP model dysfunctional, and then post some new and emerging models I’ve discovered.  These models range from those currently in action to those still in construction.  For artistic entities, the ultimate goal is to understand what one’s or one’s organization’s structural needs are in relation to mission, then either match them with what’s available, or create something new that works.  What’s happening now is the reverse: we choose the standard NFP and then strive or force our artistic intentions through it.

Although we’re working now in an environment that is changing at an unprecedented rate, change is elemental to renewal in our craft.  Today’s front-and-center change elements of technological innovation, manifest shifts in demography, and peripatetic audience participation for live events, present challenges that should refresh and energize arts organizations.  However, in large organizations, these challenges are perceived mostly as threats, or at the very least, irrelevant to their core operations.  Why?  The answers are numerous and complex.

One, larger means larger boards and larger administrative staffs to service them.  Finding board members who are passionate about an art form, while at the same time understanding the role of boards is extremely difficult.  But with the demands of fund raising and high end networking, boards are expanded regardless of these qualities.  The result is a governance structure that easily becomes unwieldy and incapable of properly considering any proposal, let alone a dramatic change-oriented one. 

Two, larger has often been the result of negative indicators.  The size of the administrative staffs in the largest orchestras in American in 1970 was at least one-fifth of the size now.  The reasons range from increased competition for audiences and philanthropy to an eroding audience base because of product inflexibility.  And the roll up of all of these factors: larger almost always equates with declining earned revenue v. contributed revenue.

Three, because of size, keeping an eye to the mission becomes increasingly difficult, as managing on a day-to-day basis becomes the status quo.  When I was with the Philadelphia Orchestra, we used to brag in a macabre fashion that we needed to raise $80,000 every day.  With that kind of challenge in one’s face every day, insuring that an organization’s mission is achieving success is not front and center.

These large organizations that meet these criteria will fail unless they undertake significant steps to restructure themselves.