A recent article in the Washington Post explores the impact of short essays in standardized tests like state proficiency exams, the SAT, and the ACT. While concise writing is certainly an essential skill, the opening paragraph of the article shows the dark side of measures and incentives.
In a seemingly unrelated news item, the Chicago Climate Exchange held its first auction of carbon dioxide emission allowances yesterday, marking “the first multinational, public trading of greenhouse gases.” In the exchange, companies that have trouble meeting emission standards can buy allowances from companies that are doing better than the requirements.
So what on earth do these stories have in common? And how can they possibly relate to arts management? Simply this: individuals and organizations value what is measured, but don’t always measure what they value. We can either recognize and leverage that fact through creative measures and incentives (the emissions exchange turns regulatory standards into cash transactions, providing more immediate incentive to profit-driven companies to comply), or we can shrug our shoulders and say that it’s the best we can do (we HAVE to use short, concise essays…it’s a standardized test that needs to be graded).
As for the relevance to arts and cultural management, just look at the measures and incentives that drive how nonprofits behave in the world: grant guidelines, reporting requirements, civic success factors based on economic impact, individual donors, headcount reporting on funding reports (‘the event drew 15,000 public school children to our venue’), ill-conceived budget forms and formulas on funding request applications, and on and on.
Certainly, we have to measure and analyze to be accountable, to inform our future programs, and to focus our efforts where they can make a difference. But every measure and incentive should also be consistent with our larger values and goals, or at least should be thought through to see where its gravity might pull us.
