Continuing our series of articles on leadership, Catherine Rose reflects on the debate at last month?s ?Art of Leadership? conference.
I don?t know whether it was meant as an omen, but the train that carried me to the ?Art of Leadership? conference in Birmingham last week bore the discouraging name ?Mission:Impossible? on its heaving flank. Is leadership in the arts becoming impossible? Or, as many fear, is it becoming impossible to find leaders who can achieve the right kind of leadership? There?s certainly no doubt that leadership is the subject of the moment, with NESTA and Clore both providing fellowships, and the media stuffed with news of foreign imports leading our major institutions.
Value and status
The conference assembled an impressive line-up of speakers. Venu Dhupa of NESTA wanted to know why so few political leaders emerge from the arts world, and why so few politicians know anything about the cultural agenda. She pointed out that ?potential leaders constantly find themselves undervalued?, and that staff leading projects worth millions of pounds are often paid less than the average wage. Perhaps it is not the leaders themselves but the way they are treated that needs examining.
Opportunity gaps
Dinah Caine from Skillset made the case for training at a high level: Harvard Business School is not just for business people. As someone who spotted a development opportunity in an unpopular area, set up an organisation of her own and ?made it popular?, she also rang bells for me. In other words, she made herself into a leader. There are dozens of us out there ? the arts are famous for it. The plethora of small organisations, companies, consultancies and freelancers is testament not only to the lack of career structure in the arts, but also to the profound frustration felt by many ? artists, managers, producers ? who feel deprived of the opportunity to show what they can do within larger organisations, which in turn have been unable or unwilling to offer them a suitable role. Will training and development for these people be any more likely to make them acceptable ? if indeed acceptability is still acceptable to them?
Invasion of the suits?
Sue Hoyle of the Clore Leadership Programme gave us a vision of progress into leadership which was less of a ladder and more of a climbing frame, allowing the possibility of branching out sideways as well as moving up. This may not be consoling to those who are stuck in the thickets and can?t get a toe-hold on the next rung, but wasn?t an unappealing image. I challenged her with the idea that the programme would just be turning out ?suits?, but she insisted that their plans, which include specialist fellowships in strategic areas such as Youth Music, Creative Partnerships and the Arts and Health, would avoid this. She notes that organisations are fearful of losing good people, but was positive that employers are now ?beginning to realise that by supporting a member of staff in a leadership role, you enhance your reputation as an employer?. The programme has had a huge response ? they are busy sifting through over 430 applications for their 25 fellowships. An advisory panel comprising more than 40 specialists in arts and culture from the UK and abroad, and a management committee including leaders from large and small arts organisations, will be keeping it on track.
Gaps remain
There was a certain consensus about what makes a good leader (vision, communication, empowerment, confidence? etc.), and many of the delegates were rightly very positive about the debate being fostered. But it still seemed to me that there were nettles flourishing in the undergrowth that were never really grasped, such as:
Artistic leadership: Peter Cox of TMPL described inspiring bosses he has worked for as ?charismatic, dogmatic, dictatorial, paternalistic and brilliant?. We know that artistic leaders are often infuriatingly difficult people ? verging on madness in some cases. Will these be among the qualities that the Clore programme will be seeking? I am not speaking here of artists who have gone into management ? a field packed with talent, but a different category altogether. Where does artistic leadership and management leadership meet? How do you untangle the overlaps and bridge the gaps?
Choosing the right people: Arts leaders are often not chosen by artists or even by arts managers, but by the ?suits, luvvies and crossovers? who make up the Board (unless they are among the roughly 50% of arts employees who work for local authorities). How good are they at spotting the orchid among the roses? And will they still choose a rose because they like the smell?
The search for a definition of leadership: There was talk of ?leadership at all levels?, which I felt at least some of the time confused leadership with initiative. The difference between good management and leadership was often referred to, but never really pinned down. Different styles of leadership (e.g., dictatorial, democratic, etc.) were alluded to, but only fleetingly related to reality. There was a lot of talk about conductors as a model for leadership (which as a conductor myself I found quite funny).
But most importantly, I realised increasingly that we have not quite defined what it is that we are asking people to lead. Dorothy Wilson of mac (where the conference took place) crucially defined the need for ?people who really understand the principles of community involvement and engagement?. I wonder whether this is being recognised in the upper echelons of the arts world: that the arts have changed, are changing and will continue to change, and that our perception of the type of leadership we need may have to change too. We may still need the captains for our flagship institutions, but we also need potential leaders of a somewhat different kidney: those who can drive new developments in diversity, participation and access, and who until now may have been overlooked.
Catherine Rose is an arts consultant and journalist, and editor of APe-mail.
e: abzx31@dial.pipex.com