Last month, I took part in a fabulous leadership roundtable discussion hosted by the Heinz Endowments in Pittsburgh (which inspired me to talk about hammers and sponges). Part of our assignment in advance of the meeting was to draft a short case description of an arts organization that reconsidered its business model in response to some struggle or another. The case could be real or imagined, it was just intended to spark a broad conversation among the group.
With the kind permission of the Heinz Endowments, I’ve now posted my short case to this website: Radical Restructure at the Fictitious Symphony is now available in web and downloadable form (under a Creative Commons license, so copy to your heart’s content).
The case explores the history of the Fictitious Symphony, and its realization that its method of addressing its mission may actually be a barrier to achieving its mission…so it deconstructs itself into smaller pieces.
Before anyone writes to pound me, I’m not suggesting that symphonies actually attempt the strange hybrid model described in the case. I just intended to nudge a conversation about why we frame our organizations the way we do, and why we often can’t see the many other ways of getting to our goals.
The underlying thought is this: arts and cultural organizations have a mission (in this case, sharing live symphonic music with the world) and they have a means they’ve chosen to get them there (in this case, a full-time, resident, professional symphony). At some point, it may turn out that one no longer serves the other, and the organization needs to choose which of those is more important. Either answer is fine, but I’m suggesting that sometimes there has to be a choice.
Give it a read, and please post a comment if it invokes a response (positive or negative).
To place my comments in context: I’m a former ASOL Fellow & have worked for a Big 5 orchestra. Although I am no longer working in the business, I am an orchestra subscriber & donor.
That said, I would like to differ just a smidge about the ”happy ever after” conclusion of the Fictitious Symphony case study.
Somewhere along the way, someone made the comment to me that the orchestra is the bedrock of all the performing arts in the community, namely ballet & opera. A community needs its own regularly performing orchestra in order to supply these other art forms with a solid base on which to build. Wagner operas or Hindemith ballets can’t be performed successfully with a pickup orchestra. Not that every community needs these, but the basic concept is that limiting the ensemble-playing experience of musicians & conductors in the community will limit the possibilities of the other performing arts.
Also, in a recent Adaptistration blog, an orchestra musician commented on the importance of identifying & connecting with the musicians on stage. I found that to be true in my case. There’s something comforting & reassuring to watch & hear an orchestra musician evolve over the years. I couldn’t get that if I had to live on a diet of visiting orchestras.
I think your solutions for the Fictitious would definitely work for certain communities, but one in which I hope I don’t have to live.
ANDREW RESPONDS:
Thanks for the comment, and the commentary. I had no intention of suggesting this case as a ‘solution’ to anything…but instead hoped to encourage the kind of clarity you offer in your post. There ARE exceptionally important reasons to have a resident company of professional musicians in a community, as you suggest (some others include the infrastructure it provides for private lessons, strong university music programs, and such). But those reasons are rarely stated, and their effects are poorly managed by most orchestras I know.
And as to the ‘happy ending,’ I hoped I had left the outcomes fairly vague and open:
”The board couldn’t yet know the longer-term impact of their fairly radical restructuring on future audiences, long-term sustainability of any of the new organizations, or the overall availability and quality of live ensemble performances throughout the region.”
They had eliminated one of the primary magnets for exceptional classical music professionals in their community. In its place, they had established some other mechanisms to keep and attract the entrepreneurial musicians among them. But there’s no indication in the case that all would go well (or that all would go to hell). The point of the exercise is to consider ‘what comes next’.
Thanks again. Keep the comments coming!
I think that the poster above might be right that there could be a problem relating to ”art” being created in only having visiting musicians. However, keeping an orchestra alive just because once upon a time it was a good idea or just because you said you would is not a good idea. And they do help to fight against this with the co-op which is encouraging smaller groups and individuals to fill that void.
All groups should force themselves to periodically reconsider if their mission still makes sense — and if they’re actually achieving any semblance of that mission. While I think that even successful groups should do this, this is especially true of struggling groups. Even more of once prosperous and now struggling groups.
I think the organization in this fictitious case is both smart and brave. Making that kind of change would be very difficult. But just staying with the (failing) status quo is wasteful and irresponsible to the greater world.