The importance of Boards, and in particular, the role of their Chairs, is increasingly in the spotlight, fuelled by a growing emphasis on both corporate performance and corporate governance. In the second of a series on leadership, Professor Stuart Timperley explores the influence of the Chair on the leadership of arts organisations.
The great variability in the quality and performance of Boards in arts organisations can undoubtedly be attributed, at least in part, to the performance of their Chairs. Better performing Chairs a) manage the relationships with the key stakeholders effectively, b) have strong and clear relationships with relevant senior managers and, c) use both of these to establish a clarity of purpose and style together with an understanding of the nature and scope of Board responsibility and influence.
Relationship with stakeholders
I recall a number of years ago speaking to the Chairmen of Football League clubs on the subject of financial stability (clearly not a success!). I made the point that, in my own experience as a club Chairman, the differences in motivation, philosophy and expectations of shareholders and stakeholders (supporters and communities) created both real constraints and distinctive opportunities for the running and building of a club.
The same principle – that of the importance of stakeholders’ attitudes – surely applies to arts organisations, and the need to understand, effectively manage and constructively influence relationships with different stakeholders (essentially funders and supporters) is crucial for the Chair of any arts organisation. As a funder I place great store on the responsibility of the Board to ensure that public funds are appropriately managed and regard the Chair as a major reference point in this respect.
Many of the problems that arise in arts organisations are related to failure in the relationship with their stakeholders. Funders, for example, have a clear responsibility to manage their relationships with funded organisations effectively; but there is also a clear requirement for any Board to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard. Funding partnerships are increasingly common, but are often both difficult and ineffective. Sponsors and supporters are shifting their priorities, and local authority and Arts Council funding is constantly under pressure. For the leadership of any arts organisation, learning not only to read the changes, but to steer their organisation successfully through them, is a big challenge. For a Chair it should be part of the turf.
Relationships with executive leadership
I have witnessed some spectacular dysfunctionality between Boards and artistic leadership, and in the great majority of these cases, some form of disaster has been the outcome. The lack of an effective (or any) relationship between the executive/artistic leadership and the Chair in particular appears to be a significant contributing factor. The converse often applies too. As a funder I am often struck by the way that the better performing and more vibrant arts organisations are characterised by a mix of vigorous and open discussion between their Boards and their leadership, a balance between pragmatism and risk, and a strong sense of collective purpose and ambition.
The problem with generalising, of course, relates to the fact that arts organisations are likely to, and indeed should, reflect change, risk and challenge. Balancing artistic development and economic management is rarely a smooth process and it is not uncommon for discord between the Board and the senior management (and within the Board itself) to be considerable, and for the difference between effective and ineffective Chairs to become apparent. There is a world of difference between acrimony, self-serving, finger pointing and blame allocation, and honest realistic assessment, open communication and a desire to address problems and learn from mistakes.
Shaping, guiding and monitoring
Strategy development, artistic positioning and programming and the assessment of artistic and financial performance are all legitimate issues for Boards to concern themselves with. A Chair has a key role to play in these, as the Board’s agenda is a major source of their power base.
On the issue of strategy, the Board needs to agree a strategy for the organisation and in that sense is responsible, with the Executive leadership, for its content. The implementation of strategy is clearly the realm of the Executive, but monitoring carries both Board and Executive responsibility. It could be argued that one approach is for strategy to be developed by the Executive and then presented to the Board. The Board’s role, in that case, is firstly to debate it and hopefully to agree it. Alternatively the Chair might suggest, argue or insist that input to the process of strategy development could and should be provided by the Board, which would mean a greater involvement with, and ownership of that strategy.
The artistic positioning and programming issue clearly has a strategic dimension to it, for example, in determining the organisation’s distinctive competitive position; but it also has an artistic choice dimension which is clearly the territory of the artistic executive, though Board members might ‘have a view’! Balancing the need for people to engage in discussion on what is likely to be an area of interest, expertise, and passion, with the reality that the artistic executive has the ultimate responsibility for exercising judgement and making choices, needs sensitive handling. The role of Chair is pivotal in this area, with bad handling often spelling disaster and sensitive and inclusive handling characterising a strong and open Board.
The monitoring and reviewing of performance is made a lot easier if the Board has been involved and engaged, and collectively understands the basis on which choices were made. The role of the Chair in this is to ensure that the process of monitoring and review is not just an academic exercise, but a mechanism that allows for issues to be addressed at an early stage, and reassures stakeholders that the organisation is in safe and competent hands.
So, a Chair in an arts organisation? Fancy it? As a funder I believe good Chairs to be worth their weight in gold (but there’s no pay). I also find that poor Chairs tend to preside over poorly run organisations, or severely hold back potentially good ones. Under these circumstances, the recruitment and development of high quality Chairs is surely a priority.
Professor Stuart Timperley is Chair of Arts Council England, East, and a founding partner and Chairman of Slatter Timperley Associates, involved with strategic consulting and management education.