The Mission Paradox Blog

Summer Break

So here's the deal, it's time for me to disconnect from the grid for a while.  Blogging will resume the first week of July.  In the meanwhile, please do some combination of the following:

1.  Buy my e-Book.  Yeah, I said it.  It's a quality read.  Need another reason?  I'm about to start working on an online course to accompany the e-Book and people who get it now will receive the course at a discounted rate.

2. Subscribe to the blog.  Yeah, I said it.  Blog subscribers make me smile.  Plus when blogging resumes you'll be the first to know.

3.  Check out previous blog posts in the archives.  Yeah, I . . . anyway.  I've been blogging for three years and I did some of my best stuff when nobody was reading.  Go figure.

In the meanwhile if you're in Chicago for the TCG Conference please try to find me.  I'd love to say hello.

To everyone else, I'll see you in a few weeks.

 

Take a look around

Today's must read is this post from the Standford Social Innovation Review:  The Heartache of the Failed Hail Mary.  It gives six signs that your nonprofit is in trouble and is a crucial thing to check out if you are in the nonprofit arts.

Read the whole thing, but I have to add a little bit to one of his six signs.  This is sign number six:

Knights of the Dysfunctional Roundtable: "When you ask most people what kind of event they would like to go to if they had a free night, most might say they would like to go to a concert, see a movie/play or go root for their favorite team.  If you can believe it, I actually love going to board meetings.  I know it is sad and I should be committed but what happens in a gathering of board members can really be interesting.  You can tell a lot about an organization by watching how a board meeting is conducted.  How are the interactions?  Who is talking and is anyone dominating?  Where do they spend their attention?  What mechanisms, if any, are they using to guide themselves? If you can step back and just watch the flow, you probably can get a really good sense of where the organization is.  Make it interesting and watch it with headphones on."

Yes.  Yes.  Yes.

I've gotten to the point where I don't even need to ask somebody what the state of their nonprofit arts organization is.  I can just go to 2-3 Board Meetings and everything becomes clear. 

Once you see who is (or isn't at the meeting) or what questions are (or are not) being asked, you can learn a great deal about whether the organization is headed in a positive direction or off a cliff.

Give the entire thing a read.  It is well worth it.

------------------------

On a different track . . . I've got an idea and I want to share it with you guys in the universe and listen for your response.

One of the things I've been hearing from the people who bought Authentic Arts Marketing is that they have a tough time going through the exercises.

So what I'm thinking about is doing a workshop in mid May that would just for people who bought the e-Book. 

Together we would go through the "mantra" and "values" exercises.  The key to pulling this off is that everybody would have to be willing to participate and help each other.  I wouldn't want to be the only one offering ideas.  We would need everyone's wisdom and perspective.

I'm thinking about doing this in Chicago around the last week of May (maybe May 29). If it works, I'm going to find a way to do it for people who have the e-Book but don't live in Chicago.  Maybe a tele-seminar or something like that.

As for price, I'm thinking $35 for people who have the e-Book and $45 for those who don't because I'm going to send them a copy of the e-Book before we all meet.

So if anybody out there thinks such a thing would be valuable, email me at mission.paradox@yahoo.com and let me know.  Obviously no one is committed at this point, but I would like to measure interest in such a thing.

Amen

Michael Kaiser, of the Kennedy Center, on diversity:

"I have been spending a great deal of time thinking about the issue of diversity in the arts, specifically, the drive to diversify the programming and constituents of all arts organizations.

The more I consider this thorny issue, the less I am convinced that the arts world has worked hard enough to dissect the true costs, benefits and implications of recent diversity efforts.

(snip)

Having spent a great deal of my career working with arts organizations of color, I am as committed as anyone to the diversity of our arts ecology. I do not believe that we can have a truly great artistic community if all segments of our society are not represented well.

But I do not think I believe anymore in forcing Eurocentric arts organizations to do diverse works or to put one minority on a board." (emphasis added)

----------------------------------------

If I ever see Kaiser I'm going to kiss him just for saying that . . . and I don't care how he feels about said kiss . . . he deserves it.

I touched on this in my "Gravity" post but Kaiser says it better then I ever could.

Part of embracing diversity is accepting people's choice not to be diverse.

Many people, myself included, believe that for the arts to thrive now you should probably build an organization that attracts a wide range of people.

But if someone doesn't want to do that, for whatever reason, we have to be mature enough as an industry to go "that's ok."

Few things are more painful then watching an organization try to jam an African-American or Latina artist into their lineup in a transparent attempt to be diverse.

It's bad for them, bad for the artist and insulting to audiences of all colors.

They shouldn't have to engage in such measures if they don't want to.

Now let me be clear, I think refusing to embrace the diverse and interesting world we live in is just dumb.

But if they do, it's their choice and we should respect that.

Embrace the ones that want to reflect the world.  Let the other ones work things out on their own.

 

 

 

Came for the party

It's a few years back, during my Executive Director days.

I get a phone call from a Board member.  He's about quitting the Board.

This ain't good.  I try to figure out why.  He's vague about it.  He mentions "time constraints" and that sort of thing.

It's BS and I know it.  I hunt for the real answer.

"Adam, I'm just not having any fun."

Check mate.

-----------------------------------------

Boards of Directors are tricky things.  We all have heard the story of the arts boards gone nuts.

When Board's work well . . . especially during Board meetings . . . the meetings tend to go like this.

The meeting starts with the financial stuff.  Balance sheets, fundraising reports, etc.

The Board members sit there.  They are trying to pay attention but it's real easy to zone out.

Why?

Because it's all numbers and corporate stuff.

Basically for these Board members (many of who are on the corporate side of life) it's like being at work.  So you can understand the lack of enthusiasm.

Then, at the good Board meetings, something cool happens. 

The Artistic Director starts sharing his vision for shows in the future.

Or a dancer comes in and shares some steps for his next recital.

Suddenly, these Board members who were struggling to stay awake, start to come alive.

They sit up in their chairs.  The pens hit the table.  They start asking good questions.

You've got to remember, this is what they came here for.

If they wanted to spend hours thinking about budgets and deficits and the money they need to make it to the next day . . . they could have just stayed at work.

These Board members have joined your organization because they want to connect to the art.  The money they give you in the form of donations, is the price they pay for that connection.

But if you don't give them that connection.  If you keep the art at arms length from them, then you run the risk of losing them . . .

Because they aren't having any fun.

Who Runs It?

Artistic ensembles and Boards of Directors are a tricky mix. 

It takes a really special group on both sides to make the marriage work.

When it doesn't work, things like this happen.  That link will take you to a Chicago Tribune story about the American Theatre Company (ATC). 

Pretty much the entire ensemble that has been with the company for well over two decades walked out, leaving behind a relatively new Artistic Director and most of the Board of Directors.

The link will take you to an interesting story, but the real fun happens in the comments section where two camps have formed:

One camp feels like the new Artistic Director was taking the theatre to artistic places it didn't need to go and ignoring the ensemble that was the foundation of the company.  There is also many claims that the new AD is a raging egomanic using the the theatre as his own person platform.

The other camp feels like the old ensemble was holding the theatre back because of their unwillingness to grow and change.  For even more fun there's a bit of racial dynamic in there as people wonder how an almost entirely white ensemble could make claims to be an "American" theatre company.

Good times.

You decide for yourself which side you're on.  For me, it's just a reminder of how complex the relationship can be between a Board and an artistic staff.

Wait a minute, I'm wrong, it isn't complex at all.

The Board of Directors runs a nonprofit arts organization.

The Board of Directors runs your arts organization.

So if that Board is composed of artists, then they run it.

If it's composed of grey haired old ladies, they run it.

So if a fight breaks out between an ensemble and the Board and neither side is willing to budge, then the Board wins.

This is why it is vital important for you to think long and hard about who will be on your Board because those individuals have far more power then most realize, whether they choose to exercise that power or not.

If you don't like the idea of a Board having that much power then you need to specifically, in the by-laws of your organization, limit the Board's power.

Yes, the by-laws, that document you slapped together a few years ago and haven't thought about since. 

It is technically the most important document your organization has.  Because unless the by-laws specifically limit the power of the Board then the assumption is that they run the company.

Just something for you to think about.

The situation at ATC is tragic, but it damn sure isn't new.  So read the story, read the comments and then think about what you can do to make sure nothing similar happens where you are.

 

The Board Reality

Alright, let's talk about your Board of Directors.

One of the things my post yesterday generated was a lot of emails from people who were unhappy with their Board of Directors.

The complaints ranged from "our Board doesn't raise enough money" to "our Board doesn't get the reality of my job."

I understand the hard feelings.  And I think many of those hard feelings are caused by a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between an organization and it's Board.

Let's think this through . . . (and as always, stay with me, I'm going somewhere with this)

-------------------------------------

Let's pretend that you were asked to be on the Board of Directors for a for profit organization.  Let's say McDonalds.

Technically, this Board runs McDonald's.  Just like a nonprofit Board runs the nonprofit organization.

You were asked to be on the Board of McDonald's because of your expertise in a given field.  Maybe finance, maybe international law.

Now, here's the first question for you Ms. New McDonald's Board Member, whose interest do you represent?

The McDonald's shareholders.  Exactly. 

And what do those shareholders want?

Right, more value/money

And how do we measure value in this particular for profit organization?

The stock price. 

The great thing about that particular measure is that it is so easy to figure out.  All you need to do is check the stock price online and you have a pretty good idea of where the company is.

--------------------------

Now being on this McDonald's Board is pretty cool, but you probably also have a full time job of your own.  So it's not like you can spend all your time thinking about Big Macs.

Plus, like I said above, you're probably a finance expert and you don't know THAT much about McDonald's internal operations.

So the Board needs an agent, somebody whose job it is to run McDonald's on a day to day basis.

They hire that person.  They call him the CEO.

And since you already know who you represent as a Board (the shareholders), what you want that CEO to do (increase shareholder value) and the measure of that success (the stock price), you can be pretty "hands off" with that CEO.

--------------------------------

Now let's go the nonprofit Board.

First question, whose interest does the nonprofit arts Board represent?

It's a tougher question then most realize.

Do they represent the community?  If so, how do you define community and figure out what that community wants?

Do they represent the artist?  Or the artistic field as a whole?

If it's difficult for your Board to figure out who they represent, it is even more difficult to define how success is measured.

Is it better art?  More money?  More donors?  A strong world wide reputation?

-------------------------

So before you go ripping your nonprofit Board a new for their flaws, it helps to remember what a complex situation they are a part of.

As I have said before, running a nonprofit Board isn't easy.

The only way to make it a bit easier is by placing two things in the relationship between a nonprofit and it's Board:

1.  Clear goals.

2.  Trust.

You can probably see now why having some clarity on what your nonprofit is trying to accomplish is important.

What may be less obvious is why trust is such an important part of the relationship.

Go back to yesterday's post.  Why couldn't my client just tell the Board that what they wanted from him and his small staff was unrealistic?

Because the client and the Board don't trust each other.

My client doesn't believe that if he tells the Board that he's overwhelmed they will believe him and try to help.

The Board probably doesn't trust that whatever suggestions my clients give are in the best interest of the company.

So many nonprofits pick Board members based on what resources they can give to the company.

But I believe the number one criteria for picking a Board member is whether the nonprofit and the Board member trust each other.

-------------------------

Here's the bottom line:

If you work at a nonprofit arts org, try like hell to set some clear goals for your company.  It's going to be hard.  But you got to try.

But even if you do that remember this:

If you and your Board don't trust eachother enough to tell the truth about a situation, no matter how ugly the truth may be, the odds of you thriving (not just surving) long term are very slim.

Daniel Pink Lecture Online

In a previous post I mentioned how great Daniel Pink's lecture as when I saw it in D.C. 

Well the good news is that the audio of the lecture is now online.  Take 45 minutes out your day and click this link to listen.

If the link doesn't open you can find it at the Americans for the Arts homepage.

The "Who's Next" Theory

A lot of the organizations I coach are small to midsized arts groups.  They often are having serious challenges building a Board of Directors.  I always start the conversation about a Board by asking them . . .

"What type of people do you want on your Board?"

Sometimes this questions stops them dead in their tracks.

This is a bad sign.

Other times they start mentioning the names of all the heavy hitters in their town, civic leaders, CEO's etc.

My next question is always . . .

"Why would any of those people want to join your Board?"

You can imagine how well that question goes over. 

I can remember one person who said that even asking that question was an insult because it implied that their art was less worthy then others.

I understand that sort of reaction, but I think it misses the point a bit.  There is a ton of good, worthy, quality art out there.  Really, there is.

Having good art is the starting point, not the end point, particularly when it comes to attracting Board members.

Those "high powered" Board members many arts organizations crave are probably already taken by other nonprofit orgs and it is normally incredibly difficult to get them to leave groups they are already supporting to join yours.

(Note:  This doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask these folks to donate money to your group . . . just that you shouldn't necessarily count on them joining your Board.)

So if you can't get those folks, who can you get to join the Board?

Enter the "Who's Next" theory.  Let me use an example to explain it . .

------------------------

Your arts org wants to put a lawyer on the Board.  You go to the website of the biggest firm in your town and start researching.

Your search immediately takes you to the big time lawyers in the firm, the equity partners.

Stop searching.  Re-think your strategy.  Instead of looking at the top of the food chain ask yourself this one question:

"Who's next?"

Don't worry about who the current top dogs at the firm are.  Look around and take a guess about who the NEXT top dogs at the firm are.

Those are the people you want.

So you start looking at the other lawyers.  You read some bios and you see a target:

She's maybe 35 years old, her bio lists interest in arts (maybe she played cello in college).  Her body of work at the firm suggests that she may be upwardly mobile . . .

And even better, her bio lists that she is only on one nonprofit Board.  Which means she could have room for another.

There's your Board prospect.

Here's the beauty of this approach.  It allows both the organization and the Board to grow together.

You're just hitting your growth cycle . . . and so are they.

5 years from now your arts group is much stronger.

And that lower level associate is now on track to become that equity partner that you couldn't reach 5 years ago. 

So next time you are looking for Board members, remember the Who's Next theory.

Marketing and Emotion

Changing a brand. 

Redesigning a logo.

Those can often be deeply emotional decisions.  Particularly in the arts. 

Sometimes I forget this.  Then I get a reminder like the one I got a few days ago.  I was helping someone to rethink their marketing strategy and she started to tear up a little bit.

My coaching isn't designed to make people cry so I asked what was wrong. 

She said that the emotion came from two things:

The first was the feeling that she had been doing the marketing (of the company she founded) incorrectly for such a long time.

She felt like she had wasted a lot of time.

The second reason was because even though her old marketing strategies were a bit off, they were still HER strategies and she couldn't help but cling to them a little.

Marketing is about (among other things) transferring emotion from the organization to the consumer.

Sometimes you have to overcome your own emotions to get that done.                                                                                                                                                               

Watch Out for The Game Changers

Do me a favor, take 50 minutes out your life and watch this video of Seth Godin talking about the future of the music business.

UPDATE:  The Link Is Down Right Now, But The Point Still Applies

If you are musician, it is a must see.

If you aren't in the music business it is a must see.

When you watch the vid, take careful note of how Seth breaks apart the way the music business is currently being run and then helps to develop a way to make it work more effectively in the future.

I want you to follow his thinking because somebody is looking at your particular artistic field (dance, theatre, painting, whatever) in the exact same fashion.

While people get caught up in arguments about new plays versus classical works, or why people don't go to dance recitals, somebody is out there thinking about the theatre business as a whole, the dance business as a whole . . . and working on a way to change the whole damn thing.

This person . . . these people . . . are game changers.  And you need to be ready for them.

Look at the music biz.  For decades the big guys thought things could never change.

But they did.

When the wave of change hit they didn't respond to it nearly quick enough.

So now many of those companies are fighting for survival.

It is no different for the arts.

Eventually somebody is going to figure out a way of funding and selling theatre that is going to allow for well paid artists, complex artistic expressions, etc.

Somebody is going to figure out how to build a well respected arts gallery in 5 years, not 25 years.

When that happens, how are you going to respond?